|
Author
|
Topic: Jesuits vs pet pampering
|
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230
|
posted 04 October 2003 03:23 AM
Cash for pet food 'should go to poor' quote:
An authoritative magazine published by the Jesuits lashed out at the culture of pampered pets yesterday, saying animals had no souls or rights.The Roman Catholic magazine Civilta Cattolica, whose contents are approved by the Vatican, criticised the spending of "good money" on outlandish pet foods, calling the practice "mad" and "morally condemnatory". Such money, it said, would be better spent on far nobler causes, such as the starving children of the Third World. "Animals don't have rights, because these belong to Man," the magazine declared. By "Man" it said it meant a "person, an intelligent and free being, which is conscious and responsible, and blessed with a spiritual soul." This did not mean that Man could "maltreat animals or make them suffer. He instead must look after them, since he is not their owner, but the custodian and administrator of creation." The magazine was severe about the fortunes some people spend on their pets. "It's all very well for Italians to have cats and dogs in their homes," Civilta Cattolica said. "They are joyous company for everyone, especially the elderly, who often live alone, and for children." But the article added: "The spending of money on very expensive and expressly made foods to nourish dogs and cats is completely mad and morally condemnatory". The same applied to people who "dress their pets in designer coats". Such a harsh position for a religious publication is unlikely to go unnoticed today of all days, the feast of St Francis of Assisi, who befriended the animals and fed the birds. Fr Mario Canciani, who will bless pets in the name of the saint in Santa Maria in Trastevere church in Rome today, said the article was written in isolation from the real world. "The average theologian is almost always solitary, and closed in his ivory tower."
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 04 October 2003 09:25 AM
That article was obviously written by the stupid Jesuits. There are smart Jesuits. The stupid Jesuits are the narrow rationalists and logicians, as we see here. I share everyone else's outrage. If the logic-choppers (for that is what they are) want to condemn conspicuous consumption in general, then why don't they do that? As soon as they segue to man's dominion over nature, they start sounding more like rapacious capitalists than persons of faith. Learning to live with animals is a Zen discipline, or can and should be. There is room in every other religion for Zen discipline -- or, at least, students of Zen think so, and some wise RCs have thought so too -- even some Jesuits. God, but I hate false oppositions. Why do people spend so much time and energy on them? More heat than light, etc.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 04 October 2003 10:14 AM
Happy Saint Francis Day to all babblers! Pace e bene. http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Francis/default.asp My first reaction upon reading that article was a cynical one - what does one expect from a Church that has sanctioned the torture and massacre of cats (especially black cats, Renzo reminds me) over the centuries. And that they should have listened more to the humble saint from the green hills of Umbria. A lot of people with very little income - in the richer countries of course, not just the very richest countries but also places such as Brazil and Argentina where I know people in very straitened circumstances who sacrifice much for their beastie - buy better food for their dog or cat than they do for themselves. I believe that there is a Talmudic injunction - the kind man feeds his horse before eating himself. However, in terms of Italian society at least, the article does have a point. There is a very nasty trend towards display in Italy - I don't mean the care people take about beautiful things in a country filled with art and architecture going back to the Greeks and Romans, but a sort of nouveau riche fondness for flashy display - that means pets are bought more to show off than anything else, and are fussed over, dressed in designer doggy coats, etc. I can see how that type of behaviour could be offensive, especially if combined with a Berlusconi-style disregard for social questions and, say, the plight of asylum seekers. But people waste tonnes of money and resources on far more frivolous things than other sentient beings.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 04 October 2003 10:29 AM
And a happy St Francis Day to you too, lagatta.  (lagatta, are you sure you aren't Irish? You have a definite top o' the mornin' quality to you, lass, especially when it comes to holy-days. ) Does anyone else know the BBC comedy series Vicar of Dibley? There's a wondrous episode in that series when Geraldine and her verger stake her future on a service to bless the animals (Geraldine's tenure as vicar is being threatened by the pompous local squire). The climax is an extended silent sequence of shots of all the locals heading to the church with their animals, even the local toffs riding in in their hunting pinks, music swelling ... Och, it's lovely. It always makes me cry. Happy cry, you understand.  Exercising dominion may be our baser nature, as it is the whole nature of, eg, lions and bears. But the greatest thing about human nature is that we can free ourselves of OUR OWN nature -- that is, we can open up and be generous. We are most human when we do that. St Francis knew that. Pity that some Jesuits appear not to.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659
|
posted 04 October 2003 01:53 PM
quote:
The UN estimates the price of bringing safe water to those who need it would be $23 billion to $25 billion per year over eight to 10 years. Current world investment in clean water supplies is only $8 billion. The $15 to $17 billion shortfall is about the same amount spent every year on pet food in the U.S. and Europe.
http://www.iatp.org/iatp/News/news.cfm?News_ID=336 There is something obscene about over-consumption in the North, set alongside preventable poverty in the South. Examples like the pet food one are good ways of underlining this. But not for a second do i think it's useful to use this to berate individual pet owners. That's an example of Jesuitical logic taken to its all-too-common extremes. (Jesuitical logic in this case being used by Jesuits, but it's not their preserve alone.) The problem of global inequality needs to be tackled at a societal level.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 04 October 2003 04:51 PM
I have to go for the night now.God bless the wee animals, all of them, but most especially those who will be killed tonight by human beings in any number of ways. Mental suffering, which the wee animals share with us, remains the most intractable philosophical problem of all. Is it simply a by-product of mental power? Or has it some other purpose? Sweet dreams, all. 
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 04 October 2003 05:20 PM
I disagree with the Jesuits over the "animals have no rights at all" thing, but they do kind of have a point.Feeding your animals and such is one thing, but what about those luxury things, but superficial stuff like excessive grooming (like pet aslons) and "dog shows" and stuff like that... I am sure that stuff is less important than the lives of the poor. Even the sheer cost of some animals... like paying thousands for pure breds is disgusgting. My Betta Splendens (bought him for about $4) costs me next to nothing for food and such. MAYBE a couple bucks a month for the electricity (light, heat, water pump) and the water (~2 gallons a month, depending on how often water changes are). But food and chemicals are practically negligable for my size of tank. However, if one kept a 30 gallon tank full of rare and expensive salt water fish that needed a lot of expensive and live food, they should evaluate their priorities. Now, a marine animal enthusiast might appreciate such an aquarium. But an insanely rich guy who has that cause it looks cool in his huge house is a different story...
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Platosdad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3559
|
posted 04 October 2003 07:27 PM
My late aunt, a Franciscan nun, had a thought she'd express about Jesuits:
"They're not really Catholics ... they're Jesuits."(I guess you had to be there.) We have three dogs in our home. They cost us a lot of money, in food, vet bills, etc. etc. ... The money we spend doesn't cut into our charitable giving, which we do through various agencies and in personal donations. What they do cut into is our spending on "stuff:" cars, toys, etc. etc. If someone wants to attack us for gluttony because we spend money on our pets, rather than giving to the poor, they're free to do so. I'm confident that it's better to spend our discretionary money enriching the lives of God's creatures than to spend it on junk that will inevitably wind up in some landfill somewhere.
From: On the drive to insane.... | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 04 October 2003 07:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:
Of course, no type of spending comes close to what is wasted on military ventures. Whatever happened to the "peace dividend"?
What peace? It's easy enough to withhold the dividend: just keep making more wars.
And think of the arable land that's contaminated, seeded with mines or just plain blown away by all the wars! That would feed a few million people, if we just let them till it instead. quote:
Mental suffering, which the wee animals share with us, remains the most intractable philosophical problem of all. Is it simply a by-product of mental power? Or has it some other purpose?
Mental suffering is a whole bunch of emotions, each of which does serve a purpose. Fear produces adrenalin, to help one flee. Anger does the same for fighters. Grief for the loss of another creature is a product of love - and we know how much love contributes to survival. Sorrow, resignation and patience are more complicated, but they all help us survive as species, or add something to our social lives or make our deaths less horrific.
God...(sorry!) .. er.. Nature.. (sorry).. uh.. the First Quark (?) gave us the capacity for those emotions for good reasons, and they all work in our proper habitat. But QI never reckoned with the artificial situations Big Brain can produce.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 04 October 2003 11:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by stevepay:
An animal should have all the rights a person has for all life is egually important..Just because we are smarter don't make us anymore special..If we have a soul,so do they..It is very sad how poorly all life is treated around the world..
You are forced into a choice- kill two dogs or kill your best friend. How could you say that two lives are more important than one?  I like my fish but I'd flush him down my toilet in a second if it meant I could save a person's life.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 05 October 2003 12:34 AM
This is such a hollow arguement. There are millions and billions of dollars of "waste" that these folks could be complaining about rather than what people spend on their pets. This just goes right back the the species-centric arrogance of some of these "keepers of faith". Man has dominion over all the animals, to do with them as he wishes for they have no souls, blah blah blah. OH YES! The enlightened primate that is Man is sooooo much better for the planet than a dog, cat or parrot. We should keep those furry bastards in line, forget about their emotions and focus on peeeople again, because peeeeople are just super. Frankly, I like my cats more than I like plenty of people I meet, and it's self-righteous apes like that who certainly encourage that sentiment. No other animal species behaves the way we humans do... and let's be THANKFUL for that. PTWEY!
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 05 October 2003 12:34 AM
quote:
You are forced into a choice- kill two dogs or kill your best friend.
Kill the person who is forcing you to make that choice. The only reason i can think of to force anyone to make such a choice is sheer sadism, and the world is better off without that person, anyway. Next, s/he'll make you choose between your wife and your child, your country and your honour... quote:
How could you say that two lives are more important than one?
Decisions in nature (real life) are rarely that clear and simple and numerical. Which dog? Which human? What are the stakes and consequences?
Of course, we usually choose a member of our own species over another species, a member of our own tribe over a foreigner, a member of our family over a stranger, and ourselves over anyone else - but not always!
I like this (approximate) quote from Konrad Lorenz:
"To the man who can dissect a cabbage, a frog or a dog with the same equanimity, i recommend suicide at the earliest opportunity." But then, this has little to do with buying our dogs designer sunglasses (just idiotic!) or feeding our cats lobster bisque (probably bad for them) while somebody, somewhere is squinting and hungry. The connection between the two facts is neither obvious nor directly under our control. Give the money to a panhandler, and he might spend it on rubbing-alcohol. Give the money to the church, and it might spend it on limousine service for upscale clergy. Give the money to government, and they might pass it on to some nasty builder of toll-roads or buy a painting we'll never get to see.
The problem isn't pets: the problem is people. You can trust your hamster, but you can never trust people! [ 05 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
