Critter Prayers and Transhumanism
May 23, 2012
George Weigel
Poised as ever on the cutting edge of the politically correct and theologically dubious, the Episcopal Church–U.S.A. will soon consider adopting a Burial Service for Beloved Animals, in which the following two Collects appear:
At the burial of a farm animal
Most gracious, good Lord, we are the people of your pasture and the sheep of your hand: We thank you for placing among us the beasts of the field and allowing us to care for them, and to receive from them food and clothing to meet our necessities. We grieve this day the death of A., and we return to you a creature of your own making, one who served as an effective sign of the generosity of your love for us; through Jesus Christ our Good Shepherd, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
At the death of a wild animal
Almighty God, who make the beasts of the wild move in beauty and show forth the glory of your Name: We grieve the death of this creature, in whose living and dying the power of your Spirit was made manifest. We reverence the loss of that which was never ours to claim but only to behold with wonder; through Jesus Christ our Redeemer, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
A former Vatican official known for his prowess with a deer rifle commented on the latter: “I have my own prayer at the death of a wild animal. It begins, ‘Bless, O Lord, and these thy gifts . . .’” Another priest, seeing this, said “There’s plenty of room for all of God’s creatures . . . next to the mashed potatoes.” To which Former Vatican Official replied, “Don’t forget the gravy.”
As all but the most dour of PETA people will agree, some of us have far too much fun online.
On a more serious note, however, this exchange coincided with an email from a Canadian theologian, noting that the New Age transhumanist Barbara Marx Hubbard is the designated keynote speaker at the August general assembly of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which the Vatican has taken into ecclesiastical receivership. My Canadian colleague did some digging and found the following, instructive excerpt from the collected works of Ms. Marx Hubbard:
Although we may never know what really happened, we do know that the story told in the Gospels is that Jesus’ resurrection was a first demonstration of what I call the post-human universal person. We are told that he did not die. He made his transition, released his animal body, and reappeared in a new body at the next level of physicality to tell all of us that we would do what he did. The new person that he became had continuity of consciousness with his life as Jesus of Nazareth, an earthly life in which he had become fully human and fully divine. Jesus’ life stands as a model of the transition from Homo sapiens to Homo universalis.
Irrespective of the insight that this remarkable passage gives us into the cast of mind at the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Marx Hubbard’s blundering through Scripture and Christology does suggest one path to which the Episcopal critter prayers can lead. When the biblical metaphors used by the Lord (“people of your pasture” and “sheep of your hand”) are taken to imply that there is no substantial difference between human beings and the animal kingdom, then the temptation to transhumanism—the deliberate manipulation of the human condition through biotechnology—intensifies. As we can “improve” beef cattle, chickens and turkeys by manipulating breeding, we can make “better” human beings: transhumanized human beings, cyberhuman hybrids who are immortal. Prometheus, call your office. Aldous Huxley, how did you see this coming 80 years ago, when you were finishing Brave New World?
Babe was a great movie, but animatronics is not theology. Under today’s technological and cultural circumstances, confusing animals with human beings often leads to serious weirdness and deep trouble.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
5.23.2012 | 7:55am
patricksarsfield says:
The God Who gave us (homines sapientes) dominion over all the World also fed fish to the multitude (Matt. 14:17 et seq) and Himself ate fish (Luke 24:42-43). As the "former Vatican official" said: "Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts...."
5.23.2012 | 8:30am
ferd says:
The underlying basis for the contamination of modern day Christianity with the hyper-elevation of animal dignity has much more to do with Leftist morality (which is quite spread through Western culture) than Weigel's poke at our generation's consumption of animation.
Leftism has only one moral absolute--a god-free world of equality based on common evolution. All shapes are intrinsically equal and of equal dignity: a tree is a boy is a fish. (The only degradation from such harmony is to manipulate or dominate others. Hence, Mankind is, to some twisted naturalists, well below innocent animals.)
Yes, Leftism carries with it a bias against all domination...thus an elevation of animals.
Leftism has only one moral absolute--a god-free world of equality based on common evolution. All shapes are intrinsically equal and of equal dignity: a tree is a boy is a fish. (The only degradation from such harmony is to manipulate or dominate others. Hence, Mankind is, to some twisted naturalists, well below innocent animals.)
Yes, Leftism carries with it a bias against all domination...thus an elevation of animals.
5.23.2012 | 10:50am
jason taylor says:
What's wrong with having a prayer in the Common Prayer for the death of a beloved animal? Whatever their precise metaphysical state, one of the functions of animals is to give and receive affection from humans. How many lonely, socially awkward people have found animals to be a blessing?
5.23.2012 | 11:03am
jfm says:
Call me a lefty radical, but I actually think it's quite normal to mourn the loss of a farm animal or a pet and to celebrate its role in God's creation.
I think the prayers (especially the one for the wild animal) are over the top. We don't need to mourn the death of a wild animal.
But for one who worked for you or one who was a beloved companion, a simple, 'We thank you, Lord, God all of creation, for through your goodness we knew N, a beloved (type of animal), who made our days pass more smoothly. His/her life shows us the gift of your creation. His/her death reminds us that all that we are mortal. We pray that You will look kindly upon us at the moment of our death. We ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen.'
I think the prayers (especially the one for the wild animal) are over the top. We don't need to mourn the death of a wild animal.
But for one who worked for you or one who was a beloved companion, a simple, 'We thank you, Lord, God all of creation, for through your goodness we knew N, a beloved (type of animal), who made our days pass more smoothly. His/her life shows us the gift of your creation. His/her death reminds us that all that we are mortal. We pray that You will look kindly upon us at the moment of our death. We ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen.'
5.23.2012 | 12:37pm
Tony says:
Hi JFM, can't speak for George but am fairly certain that wasn't what he was driving at. I lead a children's liturgy at my church where the children offer their prayers of the faithful for lost pets. It is normally the first inkling they get of the finality of death and the heartbreak which often comes with unconditional love. As such, it is a great teaching tool.
George appears here to address the approaching mindset of equality between man and animal which Disney once called the "circle of life" but refuses man's unique charism in God's plan. That explains the oddball comments that Jesus did not die (or by extension, defeat death) but was transformed like a caterpillar into a butterfly. Christians think different.
Animals are equal to man. They are here "to serve man." I mean that in the companionship and Twilight Zone sense of the phrase.
George appears here to address the approaching mindset of equality between man and animal which Disney once called the "circle of life" but refuses man's unique charism in God's plan. That explains the oddball comments that Jesus did not die (or by extension, defeat death) but was transformed like a caterpillar into a butterfly. Christians think different.
Animals are equal to man. They are here "to serve man." I mean that in the companionship and Twilight Zone sense of the phrase.
5.23.2012 | 12:44pm
Joanne K McPortland says:
If God marks the fall of the sparrow, there's no reason the sparrow's fellow creatures should not do so if they are so inclined. Reverse political correctness is no more correct: to dismiss prayerful expressions of gratitude for God's creatures (even the inedible ones) as wingnut leftyism is just as silly as to canonize Bessie the Cow. Episcopalians have all manner of prayers that Catholics would consider frivolous, but at least they're beautifully written and the syntax is naturally English. At least these made me think about my creaturely relationship with undomesticated animals, which is usually limited to shouting "Those damn squirrels!"
5.23.2012 | 12:44pm
Peg says:
A neighbor of mine took in the pet dog of her oldest friend when the latter died of cancer. When the dog died, she was distraught---not so much because she loved the dog (which she did), but because he seemed to be a last link to her friend.
She says the first thing she thought of in her confusion was to call the priest who had buried her friend. My neighbor is not Catholic, but had found the priest comforting at the funeral. He came to her house in minutes, bringing a shovel with him. She picked out a spot in the yard and he buried the dog. She tells me he said a prayer, I gather something like the one suggested by "jfm" above. His emphasis was clearly to help her, and to pray for her and her dead friend, and to thank God for the dog they loved. I know she found solace.
She says the first thing she thought of in her confusion was to call the priest who had buried her friend. My neighbor is not Catholic, but had found the priest comforting at the funeral. He came to her house in minutes, bringing a shovel with him. She picked out a spot in the yard and he buried the dog. She tells me he said a prayer, I gather something like the one suggested by "jfm" above. His emphasis was clearly to help her, and to pray for her and her dead friend, and to thank God for the dog they loved. I know she found solace.
5.23.2012 | 1:20pm
anon says:
In our culture the only thing worshipped more than pets are sports. It's a sickness.
5.23.2012 | 2:15pm
Steve M says:
Come on folks. Moderation in all things. Pets are a huge part of many of our lives but The Creed refers to "us men and our salvation". Pets don't need to be saved. I hope "all dogs go to heaven" as they are God's creature and free of sin. I have said a prayer to Chrsit everytime I lost a pet thanking him fo rthe gift of this companion.
The point here is the nut speaking to the LCWR that is so far away from Christianity that they might have trouble speaking to an Episcopal meeting shows how far around the bend the LCWR is. The Vatican is not supressing a bunch of God fearing women who have given their lives for Christ. The leadership is trying to save the souls of the many religious who are put in danger by the heretical leaders of the LCWR. Don't dwell on Mr. Weigel's comments on pets and hunting. Focus on the LCWR and pray for their souls.
The point here is the nut speaking to the LCWR that is so far away from Christianity that they might have trouble speaking to an Episcopal meeting shows how far around the bend the LCWR is. The Vatican is not supressing a bunch of God fearing women who have given their lives for Christ. The leadership is trying to save the souls of the many religious who are put in danger by the heretical leaders of the LCWR. Don't dwell on Mr. Weigel's comments on pets and hunting. Focus on the LCWR and pray for their souls.
5.23.2012 | 6:28pm
Mike says:
This would be an issue where I live. When we put down our dog, the vet said that state regulations require that we have him cremated. I very much liked the dog. However, when it comes to cows, fowl, and pigs, I must admit that I belong to PETA (People Enjoying Tasty Animals). Bon apetite Mr. Weigle.
5.23.2012 | 8:35pm
Mariusz says:
The excesses of animal "rights" activists notwithstanding, the sad fact is that the secular culture at present holds the higher moral ground in reference to animals than does Christianity. The callous and quite unfunny exchange between "a former Vatican official" and "a priest", quoted at the beginning of this post, is a good example of that. I consider vegetarianism completely in line with Christian compassion and mercy. I have also noticed many, many times that the Catholics who passionately oppose vegetarianism do it only because they like to eat meat. Of course, they quote the Old and New Testaments, the Doctors of the Church, etc., etc. but they do this only to justify their taste for meat. The one question they never want to answer is "Why do you eat meat?" Sad, hypocritical and very un-Christian.
5.24.2012 | 2:07am
Rebecca Taylor says:
How did Aldous Huxley know? Because his brother Julian, the President of the British Eugenics Society coined the term transhumanism. From Julian's 1957 paper "Transhumanism":
"The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself —not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.
“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny. "
"The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself —not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.
“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny. "
5.24.2012 | 3:11am
Rick says:
We have two cats in our house. The other four of us are human, and we spend a great deal of time arguing, sparing, hurling barbed sarcasms, and so forth. In other words, we are sinning all the time. But not the cats. I sometimes look at them and think, "These are the only completely innocent creatures in this family. I have NEVER been criticized or yelled at by the cats. Such incredible tolerance!" Yes, we should not overlook the fundamental differences between ourselves and animals.
On another note, Ms. Hubbard's reflections on the nature of the resurrection don't seem quite as daffy to me as Mr. Weigal suggests. A bit New Agey in tone, to be sure, but not all that far off theologically. Saint Paul, in First Corinthians tells us, concerning the resurrection, "What is sown is perishable [our "animal" or biological body], what is raised is imperishable....It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body." This sounds very much to me like a transition to an ontologically higher state of being, as Ms. Hubbard suggests. And, of course, we are all intended to follow Him there.
On another note, Ms. Hubbard's reflections on the nature of the resurrection don't seem quite as daffy to me as Mr. Weigal suggests. A bit New Agey in tone, to be sure, but not all that far off theologically. Saint Paul, in First Corinthians tells us, concerning the resurrection, "What is sown is perishable [our "animal" or biological body], what is raised is imperishable....It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body." This sounds very much to me like a transition to an ontologically higher state of being, as Ms. Hubbard suggests. And, of course, we are all intended to follow Him there.
5.24.2012 | 3:26am
Bret Lythgoe says:
As someone who supports animal rights, I must echo Mariusz''s comments above. Certainly, unfortunately, some on the animal rights side have behaved reprehensibly, but most are kind, decent, people (many are Christian). I also have no doubt that many who oppose animal rights, are decent, kind people, and although I don't know George Weigel, I've read him over the years, and believe that he's a kind decent person as well. Which is why this article of his is so disappointing. Mr. Weigel is a highly intelligent, and morally serious person. For him to write about animal issues, in such non serious, even morally frivolous manner, is rather shocking.
I understand that few who read this blog are going to be sympathetic to the animal rights cause, but the Catholic Church has argued in favor of treating animals decently. It's hard to fathom how animals being shot to death qualifies as decent treatment. Also, my guess would be that God did not create a plethora of creatures just so we could kill them and eat them next to the potatoes and gravy. Every animal has a life, that's important to it. Maybe it's not as important as a human life, but it deserves more than to be shot to death, don't you think?
It would be interesting to see what Mr. Weigel thinks about the work of another Catholic, who has written excellently, and in a most unfrivolous manner, concerning animal issues, Matthew Scully. The latter's excellent book, DOMINION: The power of man, the suffering of animals, and the call to mercy (St. Martin's Press, 2002). It would be difficult to praise this book too highly. Scully has shown considerable courage, in righting this book. He's a political conservative speechwriter, for G.W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and others! Here's a link to a book review, several years backhttp://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/books/the-most-compassionate-conservative.html
I understand that few who read this blog are going to be sympathetic to the animal rights cause, but the Catholic Church has argued in favor of treating animals decently. It's hard to fathom how animals being shot to death qualifies as decent treatment. Also, my guess would be that God did not create a plethora of creatures just so we could kill them and eat them next to the potatoes and gravy. Every animal has a life, that's important to it. Maybe it's not as important as a human life, but it deserves more than to be shot to death, don't you think?
It would be interesting to see what Mr. Weigel thinks about the work of another Catholic, who has written excellently, and in a most unfrivolous manner, concerning animal issues, Matthew Scully. The latter's excellent book, DOMINION: The power of man, the suffering of animals, and the call to mercy (St. Martin's Press, 2002). It would be difficult to praise this book too highly. Scully has shown considerable courage, in righting this book. He's a political conservative speechwriter, for G.W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and others! Here's a link to a book review, several years backhttp://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/books/the-most-compassionate-conservative.html
5.24.2012 | 11:22am
patricksarsfield says:
Bret writes:
"Also, my guess would be that God did not create a plethora of creatures just so we could kill them and eat them next to the potatoes and gravy. Every animal has a life, that's important to it. Maybe it's not as important as a human life, but it deserves more than to be shot to death, don't you think? "
Should we engage in gratuitous violence toward animals? Definitely not. Should we eschew eating the flesh of other creatures, though? Likewise: definitely not. Jesus Christ in His Glorified Body still ate fish. So give me that old time religion; it's good enough for me.
"Also, my guess would be that God did not create a plethora of creatures just so we could kill them and eat them next to the potatoes and gravy. Every animal has a life, that's important to it. Maybe it's not as important as a human life, but it deserves more than to be shot to death, don't you think? "
Should we engage in gratuitous violence toward animals? Definitely not. Should we eschew eating the flesh of other creatures, though? Likewise: definitely not. Jesus Christ in His Glorified Body still ate fish. So give me that old time religion; it's good enough for me.
5.28.2012 | 2:56pm
Edwin says:
Mr. Weigel makes a gigantic leap in claiming that the prayers in question erase the distinction between human beings and other animals. Nothing of the kind is said or implied, and Mr. Weigel's conclusion says a lot more about his own ideological agenda than about the texts in question. My own only objection to the texts would be that the prayer over a wild animal seems to imply that it's wrong for humans to kill wild animals. That's a legitimate point of criticism. But Mr. Weigel misses the opportunity for a nuanced discussion with his wild language about "confusing animals with human beings."
