Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology [1 ed.] 1527516024, 9781527516021

Citation preview

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering



Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology By

Dr. Christina Nellist

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology By Dr. Christina Nellist This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Christina Nellist All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-1602-4 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-1602-1

To my God. To my Church. To those who try to prevent or alleviate suffering.

EPIGRAPH

So the Lord God smelled a sweet aroma. Then the Lord God thought it over and said, “I will never again curse the earth because of man’s works, although the mind of man is diligently involved with evil things from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.” 1





1 Gn 8:21. Septuagint, The Orthodox Study Bible, St Athanasius Academy: Thomas Nelson.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ................................................................................... xi List of Graphs .......................................................................................... xii List of Tables ........................................................................................... xiii List of Abbreviations .............................................................................. xiv Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Hypothesis ............................................................................................. 1 A Note on Textual Criticism .................................................................. 1 Chapter One ............................................................................................... 4 A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering Overview................................................................................................ 4 The Contemporary Scene ....................................................................... 4 Animal Suffering ................................................................................... 8 Scales of Suffering ................................................................................. 9 Deliberate Cruelty ................................................................................ 11 Food Production ................................................................................... 12 Entertainment ....................................................................................... 15 Entertainment as Tradition ................................................................... 16 Sport, Recreational and Trophy Hunting ............................................. 17 Hunting for Fur and Fur Farms ............................................................ 18 Traditional Medicine............................................................................ 21 Experiments on Animals ...................................................................... 22 Chapter One Summary ......................................................................... 23 Chapter Two ............................................................................................ 25 Ancient Voices: The Old Testament Overview.............................................................................................. 25 Patristic Commentary: Behavioural Guidance ..................................... 26 Knowing God: Father and Creator ....................................................... 29 God: The Source of All Goodness ....................................................... 33 A World Free of Suffering: Compassion and Mercy to Animals......... 35 The Law: Dispensations....................................................................... 48

viii

Table of Contents

Noah: Protection and Failure ............................................................... 52 Chapter Two Summary ........................................................................ 64 Chapter Three .......................................................................................... 68 Ancient Voices: The New Testament Overview............................................................................................. 68 Knowing God: Son and Image ............................................................ 68 Image: A Christ-Like Life .................................................................. 76 Extending the Law: Protection and Success ....................................... 87 The Sabbath Law: Matthew and Luke ................................................ 89 Icon: “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering” .................... 94 Chapter Three Summary ..................................................................... 98 Chapter Four ......................................................................................... 100 Saints and Sinners Overview............................................................................................ 100 The Saints .......................................................................................... 100 A Christ-Like Love ...................................................................... 101 Prayers for Animals ...................................................................... 110 The Saints Summary .................................................................... 120 The Sinners ....................................................................................... 121 The Sin of Animal Abuse and its Relevance for Human Salvation .................................................................... 121 The Sinners Summary .................................................................. 129 Chapter Four Summary ...................................................................... 130 Chapter Five .......................................................................................... 133 Cyprus Case Study Overview............................................................................................ 133 Part One ............................................................................................. 134 2011 Research: Cyprus Voice for Animals Online Survey .......... 134 Part One Summary ....................................................................... 138 Part Two............................................................................................. 139 2012 Research: Animal Protectionist Questionnaire .................... 139 Mixed-Method Questionnaire Participation Statistics .................. 139 Sample Questions ......................................................................... 140 Participant Comments .................................................................. 142 Participant Suggestions ................................................................ 145 Part Two Summary....................................................................... 146 Part Three........................................................................................... 148 2013 Research: A Priest’s Response ........................................... 148

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering

ix

Interview ...................................................................................... 148 Analysis ........................................................................................ 151 Part Three Summary..................................................................... 155 Chapter Five Summary ...................................................................... 157 Chapter Six ............................................................................................ 159 Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (Ware) Overview............................................................................................ 159 Interview ............................................................................................ 159 Analysis ........................................................................................... 175 Chapter Six Summary ........................................................................ 186 Chapter Seven ........................................................................................ 187 Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis Overview............................................................................................ 187 Interview ............................................................................................ 187 Analysis ............................................................................................. 196 Chapter Seven Summary.................................................................... 208 Chapter Eight......................................................................................... 211 Modern Voices Overview............................................................................................ 211 Animal Science .................................................................................. 211 Economics: Human Rationality and Self-interest .............................. 212 Sin and Evil........................................................................................ 217 Extending Justice, Rights and Community ........................................ 224 Image of God ..................................................................................... 228 A Role for the Church ........................................................................ 233 Chapter Eight Summary ..................................................................... 240 Chapter Nine .......................................................................................... 244 Implications and Application Overview ........................................................................................... 244 The Living Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church ...................... 244 An Inconvenient Truth: Sacrifice and Spiritual Revolution ............... 245 Animal Food Production Industries and Dietary Choices .................. 247 The Misuse of Human Freedom: The Animal Testing Model ........... 263 Examining the Animal Testing Model ............................................... 269 Historical Separation: Irrationality as Disposable Life ...................... 292 Chapter Nine Summary...................................................................... 307

x

Table of Contents

Chapter Ten ........................................................................................... 312 Concluding Remarks Appendix A ............................................................................................ 351 Cyprus Case Study 1) 2012 Animal Protectionist Questionnaire: Questions and Replies .................................................................. 351 2) Documentary Evidence.................................................................. 359 2 a. “Mother’s Letter.” ................................................................. 359 2 b. “Reader’s Letter: Editor’s Choice.” ...................................... 360 2 c. “Holy Insult.” ........................................................................ 361 Appendix B ............................................................................................. 363 Research Impact and Practical Applications a) Background .................................................................................... 364 b) “Holy Synod of Cyprus Letter to C.V.A.” ..................................... 365 c) “C.V.A. Public Statement.” ........................................................... 366 d) “Public Message by Bishop Isaias.” Statement on the Establishment of the Department for the Protection of the Natural Environment and the Animal Kingdom ................ 367 e) Outline of a Masters Dissertation ................................................. 369 f) Outline of an Eastern Orthodox Seminary Project ......................... 371 g) Outline of an Eastern Orthodox Church Animal Protection Group .......................................................................... 372 h) Eastern Orthodox Animal Charity: Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals................................................................................... 375 Bibliography........................................................................................... 376



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1-1 Deliberate Cruelty ....................................................................... 11 Fig. 1-2 Gestation Crate............................................................................. 12 Fig. 1-3 Foie Gras Production ................................................................... 13 Fig. 1-4 Food and Skin Production in Asia ............................................... 14 Fig. 1-5 Polar Bear in Russian Circus ....................................................... 15 Fig. 1-6 Bullfighting in Spain .................................................................... 16 Fig. 1-7 Cecil the Lion............................................................................... 17 Fig. 1-8 Canadian Seal Hunt...................................................................... 18 Fig. 1-9 Racoon Fur Farm ......................................................................... 19 Fig. 1-10 Mink Fur Farm ........................................................................... 20 Fig. 1-11 Moon Bear in Crush-Cage ......................................................... 21 Fig. 1-12 Animal Experiments Cat ............................................................ 22 Fig. 1-13 Animal Experiments Primate ..................................................... 23 Fig. 2-1 Adam Naming the Animals.......................................................... 26 Fig. 3-1 Christ’s Crucifixion ..................................................................... 84 Fig. 3-2 Crucified Dog............................................................................... 85 Fig. 3-3 Animal Experiments Primate ....................................................... 86 Fig. 3-4 Triptych “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering” ........ 95 Fig. 3-5 Centre panel of “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering” ................................................................... 97 Fig. 4-1 St. Gerasimos ............................................................................. 109 Fig. 4-2 St. Modestos............................................................................... 109 Fig. 4-3 St. Mamas .................................................................................. 109 Fig. 4-4 St. Seraphim of Sarov ................................................................ 109 Fig. 5-1 Poisoned Dog ............................................................................. 138 Fig. A-1 “Mother’s Letter” ...................................................................... 359 Fig. A-2 “Reader’s letter: Editor’s Choice”............................................. 360 Fig. A-3 “Holy Insult” ............................................................................. 361 Fig. B-1 “Holy Synod of Cyprus Statement to C.V.A” ........................... 365 Fig. B-2 “C.V.A Public Statement” ......................................................... 366 Fig. B-3 “Public Message by Bishop Isaias” ........................................... 367

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 5-1 C. V. A. Online Survey Demographic Data (2011) .............. 134 Graph 5-2 C. V. A. Question on the Eastern Orthodox Church (2011) . 136 Graph 5-3 Question 2 (2012) ................................................................. 141

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1 Mixed-Method Questionnaire Participation Statistics (2012) ....................................................................... 140 Table 5-2 Results Table of Priest’s Comments (2013) ............................ 154

ABBREVIATIONS

CANNPNF Schaff, P. ed. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and PostNicene Church Fathers Collection, Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle. 2014. CCSG Leemans, J. and Jocque, L. eds. Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca, Institute for Early Christian and Byzantine Studies: Leuven, 2016. CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Washington, DC, 1903. GCS Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’ sche Buchhandlung, 1903. OC Oriens Christianus, Kaufhold, H., and M. Kropp, eds. Germany: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1901. OSB The Orthodox Study Bible, Metropolitan Maximus, Pentiuc, E. Najim, M., and J. N. Sparks. eds. St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, Elk Grove, CA: Thomas Nelson, 2008. PG Patrologia Graeca, Minge, J. P. ed. Paris, 1857-66. SC Sources Chrétiennes, Meunier, B. ed. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1942.



INTRODUCTION

Hypothesis Through the historical reading of work by Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (Ware), H. A. H. Bartholomew, Sebastian Brock, and Andrew Linzey, I formed the opinion that the Eastern Orthodox Church has sufficient teachings to develop a theology that tackles the difficult subject of animal suffering. Traditionally, the dominant focus of Christian theology has been on humanity’s relationship with God. I advance the opinion that there is another less prominent Eastern Orthodox tradition that advocated a more inclusive theology, which, if accepted and promoted, will provide guidance for a more compassionate treatment of animals than is currently the case. The overarching hypothesis has three component parts: 1) Eastern Orthodox teachings allow for the formulation of an inclusive theology, which addresses the subject of animal suffering. 2) There is a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice on this subject, both at academic and pastoral level. 3) The abuse and exploitation of animals has negative soteriological consequences for those who indulge in such practices, those who know but are indifferent to animal suffering and those who know and are concerned but fail to act in order to reduce or prevent that suffering.

A Note on Textual Criticism The academic community accepts the problems of differences in biblical translation and whilst the subject is too large to discuss here, it is important to note some points of significance to this work. Bible translations throughout the ages have produced various mistranslations and textual differences. 1 Wegner (2000) specifically comments upon the

 1

Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations. See Appendix 1, 50, for a comparison between the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus.

2

Introduction

significance of manuscripts used in translation, which relates to important points in discussions on New Testament texts: The Textus Receptus derives from manuscripts no earlier than the 10th century, whereas we now have manuscripts dating as early as the 2nd century…The scholars translating the Authorised Version of 1611 could have known of only 25 late manuscripts at the most for the New Testament, whereas today there are at least 5,358 New Testament manuscripts and fragments. For the Old Testament, they had only a few later Hebrew texts and one text of the Septuagint, but now about 800 manuscripts and versions are available.2

The New Testament texts used by the Latin West also contain mistranslations from the original Greek.3 Wegner makes a further point of relevance: It is hard to believe that in just a little over a century ago there was essentially, only one English translation of the Bible. Translations have multiplied to the extent that choosing a Bible can be quite confusing.4

It is important therefore to identify the source used in the New Testament discussion. I use the Nestle-Aland Greek English New Testament 5 rather than The Orthodox Study Bible 6 and do so due to the problems outlined by the Eastern Orthodox biblical scholar and translator, Fr Ephrem Lash, who was critical of some aspects of this translation. He states: First of all, let us look at the translation used. This is not an Orthodox one at all. The editors have taken the New King James Version (NKJV), which is a slightly modernised (‘You’ not ‘Thou’) re-edition of the version of 1611.7

This is an important point relating to patristic teachings of relevance to the subject of animal suffering. This “modernised” version translates Luke

 2

Wegner, 339. Wegner, 400. 4 Wegner, 399. An ‘Eastern Orthodox Bible’ was first published in English in 1998. 5 Aland, et al., Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament. For an explanation of the texts used in this critical edition, see v-x, 1-46. 6 The Orthodox Study Bible. For an explanation of the texts used in the New Testament section, see xii. 7 My emphasis. Lash, “The Orthodox Study Bible: A Review,” 3. 3

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering

3

14:5 as “donkey or an ox.’’ In some ancient manuscripts an alternative translation of ‘ass’ is used in place of ‘donkey’. Other manuscripts use “son or an ox.” The obvious and serious question arising here is which interpretation is correct? Upon examination of the patristic commentaries on Luke 14:5, I find that the Fathers use ‘son’. Whilst I cannot identify the specific manuscripts used for their interpretations and commentaries on Luke 14:5, I am confident that the Fathers manuscripts accord with the Nestle-Aland translation, which translates Luke 14:5 as “son or an ox”. As a result, I use the Nestle-Aland translation for my arguments on this particular text.

CHAPTER ONE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO ANIMAL SUFFERING

Overview In Chapter One, I examine the contemporary Eastern Orthodox academic literature and find that despite the considerable debate on the need to care for and protect the environment there is still little engagement by leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church or its scholars on the suffering of individual animals within that environment. Whilst there are positive comments, which denounce cruelty there is ambiguity regarding our treatment and relationships with animals. Due to the lack of engagement, there is likely to be ignorance on most aspects of this subject. As a result, there is a brief discussion on the common definition of ‘unnecessary suffering’ and degrees of suffering. There is also an outline of the main areas through pictorial depictions. The process of offering information on academic literature and relevant websites for further reference begins.

The Contemporary Scene This work is a natural progression of the contemporary Eastern Orthodox debate on the environment. To position the work in terms of the Eastern Orthodox academic debate, this work stands alone. In the Western theological corpus, it broadly aligns with the works of Linzey and Clough who argue for an inclusive theology, which rejects any form of violence, exploitation and abuse of human and non-human beings.1 Whilst I am in full agreement with these scholars, my work differs in that I combine the theological debate with my own social science research and focus on Eastern Orthodox voices, ancient and modern, whereas my contemporaries occasionally dip into Orthodoxy to make or validate a specific point. In

 1

Neither of these Christian academics are Orthodox and this is why much of their work is not referenced. Nonetheless upon meeting them one cannot but be struck by their deep spirituality.

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

5

addition, whilst I discuss many aspects of animal suffering, my arguments also focus on the soteriological implications of animal suffering. In the non-theological Western debate, this work aligns with Godlovitch & Harris’s work on moral philosophy and with some of Singer’s views, though I reject aspects of his utilitarian arguments. It also aligns with the work of Knight and Bekoff who use scientific research in their discussions on aspects of the animal suffering theme. In general, there is positive engagement by Eastern Orthodox theologians and academics with the environmental debate although Engelhardt (2013) suggests that Orthodoxy provides “little clear, direct and specific guidance regarding a range of environmental issues.”2 I would tend to agree with his assessment but posit that this lack of clarity arises not from a lack of material from which to produce such an environmental or indeed animal theology and ethic but rather, from a failure to explore the available material in order to produce them.3 The leader in positive commentary is unquestionably the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew who grounds his comments in the patristic tradition with its frequent general references to “the creation” “the world” and “all things.” His teachings on the sin involved in the misuse of creation, is extremely important for this work. 4 In this context he reflects the ‘ancient teachings’ of St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies5 and other patristic writers who teach on the significance of knowledge of good and evil; without such teachings it would be difficult to evolve any spiritual, moral or ethical treatment of the environment or animals. H. A. H. Bartholomew has also brought together scientists and theologians, in order to find an ethical response to the environmental crisis. This might suggest that a thorough exploration of animal suffering within this environmental debate has taken place, yet from the review of Eastern Orthodox literature, this appears not

 2

Engelhardt, Jr, “Ecology, Morality and the Challenge of the Twenty-First Century,” 278. 3 It is encouraging to note his comments on our obligation not to harm animals, although ‘wanton’ suggests an acceptance of some form of harm. See H. A. H. Bartholomew, Zizioulas, Keselopoulos, Harakas, Theokritoff, Chryssavgis, Gschwandtner and the Hamalis and Papanikolaou’s (2013) article, which argues that such ideas are in Evagrius of Pontus and Maximus the Confessor, “Toward a Godly Mode of Being,” 271-280. 4 If we do not identify the sin of abuse, misuse and exploitation of animals, our treatment of them is unlikely to change. We shall continue to fail to comprehend the significance of sinful actions against animals for human salvation. I discuss his teachings in Chapters Eight and Nine. 5 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.39.1.

6

Chapter One

to be the case. 6 Gschwandtner (2012) 7 supports this assertion when commenting that the “most important collection” for her thesis was published in 1990. The works she refers to are Limouris (1990) and issue 10.3 of Epiphany Journal, which although containing work of significance for certain aspects of this theme, the majority of its statements focus on general environmental concerns.8 The “one book-length” treatment of the ecological problem referred to by Gschwandtner is by Theokritoff (2009).9 The title of this work indicates its primary focus and whilst the author is clearly sympathetic to the plight of animals and includes much useful material, the specific section on contemporary themes entitled “Animals and their Creator” is limited to just three pages in length.10 Within these three pages, Theokritoff mentions two texts: one is an untranslated article from 1989 by Clément 11 the other is by the Russian philosopher Goricheva.12 Theokritoff describes both works as speculative but worthy of consideration. I would agree, particularly as Goricheva identifies problems between theory and praxis: Treatment of animals is an area where there is a disturbing gulf between the implications of our theology and tradition, and the attitudes and behaviour typical of Orthodox societies.13

Gschwandtner confirms this point: It is not clear, however, that these apparently so positive features of Orthodox thought and attitudes have led to greater sensitivity to the environment in its practice or to any clearly articulated ecological theology.14

 6

Brock confirms this is also the case regarding Syriac authors, “Animals and Humans,” 1-9. 7 Gschwandtner, The Role of Non-Human Creation, 7. 8 Limouris, Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation: Orthodox Perspectives on Ecology. 9 Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation. 10 Theokritoff, 238-40. When we consider the almost total lack of theological debate on the subject of animal suffering, I believe she is to be commended for including animals in this work. One must also acknowledge the possibility that discussions on animal suffering were outside Theokritoff’s remit for this particular work. 11 Clément, O. “Les animaux dans la pensee orthdoxe” Contacts 145 (1): 24-44 cited in Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation, 238. 12 Goricheva, The Burning Bush, 35. 13 Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation, 240. 14 Gschwandtner, 8.

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

7

Theokritoff also informs us of another unfortunate tendency within Eastern Orthodox debate which: …draw a sharp distinction between personhood, on the one hand, and the relationships, individuality and consciousness to be found in animals on 15 the other.

She states that such arguments “tend to be vehement”, “somewhat circular” and “frequently show little interest in what is actually known about animal behaviour.” 16 I agree with her analysis, for my review of Eastern Orthodox academic literature indicates that very few Eastern Orthodox theologians use the scientific evidence available on all aspects of animal suffering. Knight (2013) supports this point when informing us that very few Eastern Orthodox theologians engage with modern science unlike those in the West.17 He does however inform us that both he and Basarab Nicolescu believe science “provides genuine insights into major theological themes.” I completely agree with his assertion. This is an important point, for as we shall see in Chapters Five and Nine, ignorance leads to a lack of understanding of other opinions and fails to produce reasoned argument or good theology. This ‘separationist’ theology as I refer to it is commonplace and many factors account for its inception. Gschwandtner and Engelhardt’s statements define part of the problemthere are few specific comments regarding animal suffering and where they exist, they are far from developed. This indicates a lack of Eastern Orthodox engagement with the subject and in part, confirms the hypothesis of a gap in the literature. There is little reference to Stefanatos and I presume this is because she is a veterinarian, rather than an Eastern Orthodox theologian.18 The point to emphasise here is that whilst there is occasional commentary there is a lack of engagement on the subject of animal suffering by the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church or its academics and theologians. In this regard, Eastern Orthodoxy has a fiftyyear deficit in serious theological debate on animal suffering as compared

 15

Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation, 240. “Other” theologians are unreferenced. Theokritoff, 240. 17 Knight, “Natural Theology”. He does however inform us that both he and Basarab Nicolescu believe science “provides genuine insights into major theological themes.” 18 I had been advised by a senior theologian to ignore her work and did not review it until after I completed my PhD. This was an error, for whilst it is certainly not an academic work, the majority of her comments comply with Eastern Orthodox theology. 16

8

Chapter One

with the West.19 There are signs of hope. Chryssavgis & Foltz (2013) have produced a compilation of articles, many of which mention animals, yet there is still little engagement with specific animal suffering issues. This work aims to bridge this gap by outlining the implications for animals and humans of this lack of engagement. It also aims to provide references to other literature and scientific studies in order to encourage further engagement and reduce ignorance on this subject. I do not suggest that I have all the answers to the vast subject of animal suffering but I believe that this material will provide an outline and foundation for a theological position on animal suffering for Eastern Orthodox theologians and ethicists to develop. As noted, due to the lack of engagement by leaders of our Church and its academics, I expect there to be ignorance on most aspects of this subject. As a result, it is both necessary and useful to outline what is understood as unnecessary suffering.

Animal Suffering In light of the fact that no detailed analysis on animal suffering by Eastern Orthodox scholars exists, it is reasonable to suggest that most, if not all, are not authorities in this field. I believe therefore, that before I present my arguments, it would be useful to examine the terminology. In general, the phrase ‘unnecessary suffering’ 20 indicates an acceptable boundary beyond which one must not traverse. 21 What is generally not acceptable is any form of suffering that is not to the animal’s benefit and obvious examples here would be any veterinary procedure that was entirely due to the preference of the owner or indeed arbitrary breed requirements such as ear cropping and tail docking. It would also include any form of suffering caused by direct and indirect forms of abuse and exploitation, and examples here would be direct cruelty and any

 19

Arguably, this began with White, “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis”; Godlovitch & Harris’s work on moral philosophy, Animals, Men and Morals; via Linzey in theology Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment and via Singer in philosophy, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics For Our Treatment of Animals. 20 There are many who oppose any suffering and object to this concept and terminology. Whilst this is an entirely acceptable position to take, it is important to note that its use here is simply because it is a familiar term to those who are not familiar with the discussions surrounding their objections. 21 The acceptance of the need to prevent animal suffering via the formulation and implementation of animal protection laws is found in most, if not all cultures, thus avoiding the accusation of cultural imperialism.

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

9

circumstance that resulted in profits acquired at the expense of the animal’s physical and psychological well-being. The obvious question arising here is who decides what is and what is not, ‘unnecessary suffering’? The generally accepted answer would be those who are expert in this field, i.e. the veterinarians and the animal protectionist organisations. Yet here there must be caution, for as in the case of the medical experts employed by the tobacco industries who denied the links to cancer, the animal food industries employ veterinarians who may deny the suffering of animals within their systems. To overcome the obvious potential for bias, one would need to weigh their definitions of what is ‘acceptable suffering’ with those who are employed by the other acknowledged experts in the field-the animal protection organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 22 whose interest lie not in profit, but in reducing animal suffering.23 I have a background in both the sciences and in animal conservation and protection and incorporate both scientific evidence and the views of animal conservation and protection groups in this work. Having defined ‘unnecessary suffering’ I now outline my objection to the relativizing of suffering.

Scales of Suffering Whilst scales of suffering can be constructed, such as the EU classification of experimental procedures24 of sub-threshold, non-recovery, mild/moderate/severe etc., I submit that the very existence of such scales presents a normalization of the unthinkable25 and fails to deal with the theological, spiritual, moral and ethical problems involved in the suffering

 22

This society was established in 1824. This does not exclude other experts in specific fields such as Prof. Andrew Knight on animal experimentation and Will Travers and Virginia McKenna from the Born Free Foundation on zoos and the illegal trade in wild animals, which is circa $19 billion per year. Further details can be found online e.g. http://www.bornfree.org.uk. 24 See the following website for various categorisations: https://www.google.co.uk/ search?q=EU+classification+of+experimental+procedures&rlz=1C1AFAB_enGB 460GB755&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihsp7ss6XbA hWOW8AKHUJNDvUQsAQIPA&biw=1904&bih=922 25 This relates to the 2015 Linzey report Normalizing the Unthinkable: The Ethics of Using Animals in Research by the Working Group of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. This incorporates over 200 studies and reports into animal experimentation. Published as a book entitled The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments. 23

10

Chapter One

of the individual animal being. For example, whilst we might relativize the suffering of a woman who is beaten with a fist with that of a woman who is beaten with a metal bar, set on fire or burnt with acid,26 it does not alter the fact that the woman who is beaten with a fist, suffers. The point is that her suffering, despite its relativity to other levels or types of suffering, is nonetheless, against God’s will. Much the same argument is applicable to animal suffering. When we try to relativize the suffering of animals for example in the various farming industries with those who 27 suffer in laboratory testing or indeed within those laboratories or elsewhere, it is equally important to recognize that each individual animal suffers. I argue that this suffering is also against God’s will. An associated and important aspect of theological discussions on all types of cruelty and suffering is to determine the soteriological implications for those who cause the suffering; know of it but are indifferent to it; or know and are concerned but fail to act in order to reduce or prevent that suffering. I submit that these soteriological discussions must include the non-human animal creation and state that if we choose to ignore their suffering, we are guilty of at least one of the three scenarios outlined above. I now outline the main areas of abuse and exploitation. In light of the desire to return to normative theological discussions, I include photographs of the main areas together with a very brief commentary on each. I also provide references to monographs/websites to aid further investigation of each theme. Out of compassion for my reader, I use examples of low-level abuse.

 26

I dealt with these issues when living and teaching in Pakistan in 1995-2000. I use the personal pronoun for non-human animals, for language such as ‘it’ indicates an object or a thing and disregards the intrinsic value, dignity and integrity of God’s created non-human animal beings. 27

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

11

Deliberate Cruelty

Fig. 1-1 Deliberate Cruelty

Fig. 1-1 is a Boxer female dog used for breeding but represents millions of animals throughout the world, who are either deliberately starved, fed an inappropriate diet, used for breeding until they are malnourished or who are abandoned. Cruelty to animals takes many forms and examples are available on most animal protection websites. 28



28 Other examples are readily available online, e.g. https://www.rspca.org.uk/ whatwedo/endcruelty.



12

Chapter One

Food Production Another area of animal suffering is that caused within the food production industries. One major cause of suffering is the confinement in small cages or pens. 29 The phrase “evil profit” is an extract from an interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (Ware) and used to describe the intensive farming process he witnessed in an American monastery.30

Fig. 1-2 Gestation/Farrowing Crates

Fig. 1-2 is a sow in a gestation/farrowing crate. A 24-hour time-lap video from a German farm accurately represents the reality for these animals.31 Females are kept in crates, which are too small for the sow to turn or walk but large enough for them to lie down on their sides to provide milk for the piglets. No natural behaviour or flourishing is possible in such circumstances.32

 29

One can find many examples of confined living spaces on the net such as http://www.care2.com/causes/10-animals-that-spend-their-entire-lives-in-a-spacesmaller-than-your-bathtub.html#ixzz49eJ8wvWR. 30 See Chapter Six. 31 Video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buJKrJKRfuw. Fig 1-2 is available from https://www.rspcaassured.org.uk/farm-animal-welfare/ pigs/. Other images are available at https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=free+photos+of+gestation+crates+pigs&tbm=i sch&tbs=rimg. 32 For a veterinary perspective see the article from the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, available at:

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

13

Fig. 1-3 Foie Gras production,

Fig. 1-3 shows geese being forced fed (gavage feeding) in order to produce Foie Gras.33 The farmer inserts all of this tube into the animal’s mouth and gullet. The procedure results in impaired liver function, expansion of the abdomen making it difficult for birds to walk, scarring of the oesophagus and death. Foie Gras production is banned in many countries including the UK, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway and Poland as the process is proven and acknowledged to be cruel, yet it remains legal elsewhere.



http://www.hsvma.org/factory_farming_and_welfare_minded_veterinary_professi onals_110512?utm_source=ipnewsarchive&utm_medium=hsvmaweb&utm_camp aign=advocacy#.Wwp0dEgvyUk. 33 Image available from: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=free+photos+of+gavage+feeding+ducks+for+f oie+gras&rlz=1C1AFAB_enGB460GB755&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa= X&ved=0ahUKEwjL_fGeuqXbAhXnBcAKHVdcBlgQsAQIhgE&biw=1904&bih =873; see also video narrated by Kate Winslet which outlines the process, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyOu-GVtgPQ.

14

Chapter One

Fig. 1-4 Food and Skin production in Asia

In the West we tend to think of food production mainly in relation to cows, pigs, sheep and chickens and indeed those processes do cause great suffering to those and many other niche food animals. In other cultures, animals such as dogs, cats and apes (bush meat) are examples of food.34 Fig. 1-4 shows Asian dogs in crowded cages, who travel long distances without food or water and killed via beatings or cut throats and without stunning. 35 This process occurs in front of the other animals who are waiting to die. The physical and psychological suffering involved in such scenarios is obvious.



34 For information on bushmeat and links to the illegal trade in wild animals see: http://www.bornfree.org.uk/animals/chimps/projects/bushmeat/ 35 Image is courtesy of Animals Asia Foundation. http://www.animalsasia.org. See also https://www.animalsasia.org/uk/our-work/cat-and-dog-welfare/what-wedo/tackling-the-meat-trade.html.

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

15

Entertainment Fig. 1-5 shows a Polar bear ‘singing’ for its audience. 36 Circuses use a wide variety of animals who, for example, jump through burning hoops, sing, dance, ice-skate, play football etc. It would be naive to think that animals perform in this way without violence. Many countries have banned the use of animals in circuses, as many undercover reports have proven the cruelty involved in many of the training processes; nonetheless, many remain.

Fig. 1-5 Polar bear in Russian circus

Other examples of this type of entertainment would be aquatic parks, zoos, horse and dog racing. 37

 36

Image is from a petition on https://www.change.org/p/ivanovo-circus-in-russiatell-ivanovo-circus-in-russia-to-stop-torturing-using-polar-bears-in-their-shows. The normal range for a polar bear would be approximately 300,000 sq. km. Similar photographs are available on-line. See also https://www.bornfree.org.uk. 37 See for example, https://www.animalaid.org.uk/the-issues/our-campaigns/horseracing/;https://www.league.org.uk/greyhound-racing.

Chapter One

16

Entertainment as Tradition In his documentary, Miguel Ángel Rolland has chronicled some of the 16,000 religious festivals across Spain, which involve the abuse of animals. He informs us “Every year about 60,000 animals are killed during these festivals, often held in honour of a local saint or the Virgin Mary. Spanish identity is a local, rather than a national affair and people are fiercely loyal to their town or village and the customs associated with it.” 38 There are numerous other traditions around the world, which cause immense suffering to animals.

Fig. 1-6 Bullfighting in Spain 39

 38

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/violent-nation-spain-festivalanimal-cruelty-turkey-bulls-film-santa-fiesta. The 2002 Greek documentary “Breath of Earth” by Panos Karkanevatos, directed by Lampros Liavas (Uni. of Athens) indicates the slaughtering of animals in pagan rituals throughout modern Greece. http://www.filmfestival.gr/2003/uk/process.php?movieid=576&eventid=124. 39 Available and with permission from Asociación Defensa Drechos Animal at: http://www.addaong.org. The copyright of the photo belongs to ADDA. See also https://www.change.org/search?q=bullfighting%20in%20spain.

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

17

Sport, Recreational and Trophy Hunting An aspect within the entertainment area is the killing of animals for pleasure. Whilst this is generally described by innocuous sounding language such as ‘sport’, ‘recreational’ and ‘trophy’ hunting, such language belies the reality of the suffering and death of the animals targeted. The recent case of Cecil the lion is a case in point. 40 This animal was lured from the protected Hwange National Park at night by a dead animal tied to the hunter’s vehicle and shot with a bow-and-arrow. The wounded lion wandered for 40 hours before being found and shot. Despite the worldwide public outcry of Cecil’s death, his son Xanda was also illegally shot in 2017.

Fig. 1-7 Cecil the Lion

 40

This image is from a petition at: http://www.care2.com/causes/demand-justicefor-cecil-the-lions-killer.html. See also https://www.change.org/search?q=cecil%20the%20lion.

Chapter One

18

Hunting for Fur & Fur Farms Figures 1-8, 9, 10 depict different aspects of this theme.41

Fig. 1-8 Canadian seal hunt

Bludgeoning seals and baby seals to death is the normal method used in the Canadian seal hunt. This method produces the least damage to the pelts. It is not a quick death and frequently undertaken in front of other seals or their mothers. Each year, large numbers of wild animals, including bobcats, foxes, lynx, raccoons and wolves die in traps and on fur farms.

 41

Fig. 1-8 is courtesy of ‘Respect for Animals Educational Trust’ http://www.respectforanimals.org. Fig. 1-9 is courtesy of Jo-Anne McArthur whose photographs are found on the ‘We Animals’ website, https://www.weanimalsarchive.org/media/6046.

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

19

Fig. 1-9 Racoon Fur Farm

Numerous animal charities have evidence of physical and mental suffering on fur farms. Some farmers skin live animals because this minimizes the cuts in the pelts and increases their profit.42 Fur farms with conditions far worse than that provided in Fig. 1-10 exist throughout the world. 43

 42

The following coalitions have useful information: https://www.furfreealliance.com. https://www.antifurcoalition.org. See also: European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) “The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur,” http://www.furfreealliance.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/welfare_animals_kept _for_fur_production.pdf; “A Case Against Fur Factory Farming – A Scientific Review of Animal Welfare Standards and ‘WelFur’”; “Cruelty Uncaged: Fur Farming in North America” (Born Free USA). 43 Image courtesy of Jo-Anne McArthur/#MakeFurHistory, and available at https://www.weanimalsarchive.org/search/category%3AFur%20Farming?page=9.

20

Chapter One

Fig. 1-10 Mink Fur Farm

In 2010, Finland brought in new legislation to improve conditions resulting in 0.25m2 for mink & cubs and 0.8m2 for adult foxes.44 This is clearly insufficient space as stereotypical behaviours such as self-inflicted mutilation and chewing off limbs are common.45 Hunting for fun, fur or skins has brought many species of animal to the edge of or indeed to extinction. Many species are also under threat because hunters kill their natural prey. Another factor is the loss and damage of their habitat due to increased overgrazing of domestic livestock for food, through conflict with cattle farmers and human overpopulation.

 44

Aaltola, Animal Suffering: Philosophy and Culture, 36. Broom and Nimon, “The Welfare of Farmed Mink.”; see also Broom and Nimon, “The Welfare of Farmed Foxes.”

45

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

21

Traditional Medicine There is a great deal of evidence on the illegal trade in some of the most endangered animals for Chinese/Traditional medicine. Traders keep Moon bears in crush-cages, some for up to 30 years, where their bile is extracted for the traditional medicine market, despite the easy chemical replication of bile by laboratory technique. 46

Fig. 1-11 Moon bear in crush-cage

Other examples would be the use of tiger parts or rhino horns.

 46

Image is courtesy of Animals Asia Foundation http://www.animalsasia.org.

Chapter One

22

Experiments on Animals One might think that the case for animal experimentation is proven. It is not. This is a subject of fierce debate within the scientific community.47 Figs. 1-12 and 1-13 are examples of mild processes. 48

Fig. 1-12 Animal Experiment Cat

Primates and many other species are sentient, intelligent animals who experience extreme pain and psychological fear and distress. Many live in an unnatural and constrictive laboratory environment where they are unable to flourish or carry out any natural behaviour. 49 It is important to

 47

I discuss this more fully in Chapter Nine. Fig. 1-12 and 1-13 are the result of a google search on the LD50 test. Numerous photographs are available on the net on the various procedure used in animal testing; E.g. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=animal+experimentation+photographs& client=firefoxbab&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9n6W X8P3QAhWrIcAKHXORCWQQ7AkIOQ&biw=1760&bih=868. Warning, such sites contain explicit material. 49 I discuss this more fully Chapter Nine. See also Knight, Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments and at http://www.animalexperiments.info. 48

A Brief Introduction to Animal Suffering

23

note that Sir David Attenborough has now added his voice to scientists calling for an end to animal experimentation.50

Fig. 1-13 Animal Experiment Primate

Chapter One Summary I have briefly explained the term ‘unnecessary suffering’ and outlined my objection to the relativizing of suffering. I have outlined several areas of animal suffering through pictorial representation in order to avoid lengthy discussions on the cost/benefit to humans and animals of each subtheme. I discuss some of these areas in detail in later chapters. I have also provided details of monographs and websites for further exploration. This approach helps to illustrate the objections to scales of suffering, for it is clear from these examples, that whilst the methods of inflicting suffering vary, the result for the individual non-human animal being is the same. Unlike the West, the Eastern Orthodox academic community has no work, which addresses the subject of animal suffering in any of the broad

 50

See Chapter Nine for other scientists calling for a ban on primate/sentient animal experiments, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-attenboroughprimates-neuroscientists-cruel-brain-tests-a7230711.htm.

24

Chapter One

areas outlined above or collectively, and this work aims to address this gap in the academic literature.51 I have at times stepped outside the normative Eastern Orthodox theological boundaries in order to define the subject under discussion. By the end of this work, we will have a greater understanding of an earlier Eastern Orthodox tradition where “all things” are embraced 52 and where love, compassion and mercy extends to all of God’s created beings. In essence, I advance the opinion that this earlier tradition provides sufficient biblical, patristic and ecclesial texts to help us formulate a contemporary position on animal suffering, which will clarify our relationship with animals, and thus, how we are to treat them. Part of my argument is that in order to reduce suffering in this world, humans must recognize that any form of violence or misuse of animals is a misuse of our freedom and against God’s will; as a result, there are soteriological implications for humanity. If my arguments are accepted, adopted and promoted by the Eastern Orthodox theological and academic communities, this work will benefit not only the non-human animals who are the subjects of physical and psychological violence, stress and exploitation, but also for humankind. For many wrongly interpret dominion as a form of domination which affords them the right to perpetrate harmful acts upon God’s non-human animal beings without realizing the soteriological implications of their actions.

 51

There are a few rare comments from contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologians which though few in number open theological space for discussion. 52 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.4:3.

CHAPTER TWO ANCIENT VOICES: THE OLD TESTAMENT

Overview Chapter Two uses a thematic approach that highlights the numerous theological routes, which can be explored through the prism of animal suffering. It presents teachings, which establish that concern and compassion for animals is not a modern phenomenon but one found in the earliest periods of the Christian Church. It provides an anamnesis of a lesser-known tradition, which abhors the suffering of animals. It also begins to highlight the soteriological implications of abuse and exploitation of non-human created beings. It explores scriptural, ecclesial, patristic and canonical texts, which are occasionally, combined with new primary research and modern commentary to develop specific points. It explores several elements, which lie at the heart of the animal suffering theme. God the Father is in loving relationship with His creation. God is the source of all goodness and virtue. All created beings were to live in harmony, peace, free of violence and suffering. As Image, we should strive to reflect the Archetype in our lives. Dispensations are not rights but a relaxation of an ideal and given to those with hardened hearts in order to bring them back to the one true God and in order to guide us away from sin and to bring us back to righteousness. 1 This material is part of the ‘theory’, which reminds us that all animals are loved and protected by God and that their suffering is against God’s will. By causing harm to animals or by our indifference to it, human salvation is in jeopardy.

 1

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.7.

26

Chapter Two

Patristic Commentary: Behavioural Guidance Traditionally, we view the Old Testament as grounded in the Law and the New Testament grounded in grace and forgiveness, both of which offer us numerous examples of universally accepted ‘good’ and ‘virtuous’ behaviours.2 Such behaviours are an indication of God’s will and desired actions for humankind, which should “govern and rule in all things.”3 The Icon below (Fig. 2-1) portrays the traditional Eastern Orthodox view of human dominion reflecting a loving and compassionate God, where all creation lives in peaceful harmony. 4

Fig. 2-1 Adam naming the animals.

 2

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.32.2; Gal 5:22. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.34.4. 4 Icon at Kykkos Metokion Cyprus. 3

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

27

Whilst I acknowledge that, it is possible to have differences in the interpretation of biblical texts and that some interpretations may lead to a different view of God’s relationship with animals, 5 I follow the interpretation of the Fathers who ground their theology in scripture and the concept of an inclusive and all-loving God. 6 This theology encourages righteous, merciful treatment of non-human animals. I use St. Irenaeus’s Against Heresies as the main text for this discussion (although many other commentaries are used) because it is an authoritative text and one, which lays the foundation for many of the later Christian doctrines. Where appropriate, I also include an occasional contemporary voice or comment upon a specific animal suffering issue in order to emphasize the relevance of the point under discussion. I argue that hitherto we have not elaborated an Eastern Orthodox view on animal suffering because of a lack of relevant teachings but rather, that for various reasons Eastern Orthodox scholars have not engaged with the subject. Initially, we can state that the early Church Fathers had no reason to offer a systematic theological view on the position of animal suffering. Church history informs us that they were far too concerned with fighting the many heresies of their times, developing the various tenets of Christian doctrine and establishing a universal interpretation of scripture which focused on the role of humankind in God’s creation.7 It is important to emphasise here that this does not mean they were indifferent to the rest of creation as St. Irenaeus’s teaching here indicates: Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis.8

This gives us the authority for including animals within our theological discussions. The Fathers also recognized that only the human creatures had sinned and that only humans were in need of instruction and repentance. St. Irenaeus is clear: While all things were made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered, and do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them.9

 5

E.g. the destruction in the flood Most obviously, Rom 8:21-22; Ps 35:7; Isa 11:6-9. 7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.4:3. 8 Irenaeus, 2.2:5. 9 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.18.7; 3.9:1, “all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” See also, 4.4.3. 6

28

Chapter Two

St. Athanasius affirms this recognition: Nothing in creation had gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only. 10

These teachings indicate that the rest of creation has knowledge of God. Such teachings help us better understand why the non-human creation was not their primary focus. It was not a lack of concern for creation, for there is a tradition of recognizing that Christ sanctifies His creation through His Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and the Eucharistic offering.11 St. Cyril of Jerusalem elucidates: And do not wonder that the whole world was ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who died on its behalf.12

Such teachings indicate that “all things” will be saved at the eschaton. Theokritoff (2009) 13 informs us that the sanctification of creation is a common theme in early patristic teachings. For example, St. Gregory Nazianzen taught that Christ sanctified everything He touched: Christ “sleeps in order to bless sleep” “weeps in order to make tears blessed” 14 and explicitly links Christ’s baptism with the sanctification of the baptismal waters.15 St. Basil of Seleucia taught that Christ saved the world and liberated the earth16 and recounts all the benefits of salvation including “a principle of purification for the world” and a “renewing of nature”.17 Theokritoff (2001, 2009) and Gschwandtner (2012) inform us that we may find many similar teachings in ecclesial texts. 18 Having identified St. Irenaeus’s interpretation of ‘all things’, it would seem incongruous to suggest that our righteous and virtuous behaviour should not extend to the non-human world. That being the case, I submit that we ought to be mindful of how such creatures are treated. Rather than viewing them as disposal lives, we ought to view them as individual creatures who are

 10

Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 43:3, CANNPNF 2-04. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.18.6. 12 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies, 13:2; see also 13:35 & 15:3. 13 Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation. 14 Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 37.2, On the Words of the Gospel, CANNPNF 207. 15 Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 29.10, The Third Theological Oration. On The Son; also, Oration 39.15-16 Theophany On the Holy Lights, CANNPNF 2-07. 16 Basil of Seleucia, Third Homily on Pascha, SC. 187:209 17 Basil of Seleucia, 187:215. 18 E.g. 5th January, Matins, Canon 9.2, Menaion, 302. 11

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

29

worthy enough to be redeemed and saved by Christ. Certainly, biblical and patristic commentary is pregnant with material, which can be used to formulate a universal, compassionate and merciful theology, which specifically helps us understand our relationship with animals and our treatment of them. Additional supporting material can be located in ecclesial texts, canon law, patristic poetry and in the hagiographies of the saints.

Knowing God: Father and Creator Eastern Orthodoxy acknowledges that whilst we can never know God’s essence19 we can know some things about God. St. Irenaeus lays the basis for this argument: So must those also who are within Him all equally partake of the Father, ignorance having no place among them...If, indeed, He has filled [all things], there will be no ignorance among them. 20

This reiterates the teachings of St. Paul 21 and is developed by many patristic commentators, the most obvious being St. Maximus and his teachings on the logoi.22 St. Irenaeus teaches that God creates in order to be known to His creation. He also acknowledges not only the common ontology of all created beings but also their individual agency and integrity.23 Such ideas are evident in the work of other early commentators such as St. Athanasius who teaches that “no part of creation is left void of him: He has filled all things everywhere.”24 Knight (2017) observes that

 19

E.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:13.4; 4.9.1, and Gregory Palamas. ‘Knowing’ God also includes the wider sense of perceiving and experiencing God. 20 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.13.7; 4.20; 4.6.4; 4.6.5-6; 4.10.1. 21 Rom 1:20. 22 Maximus, Ambiguum 7, 55; See also On First Principles 1.3.6, GCS 22:57; On Prayer (De Oration) 24:2, GCS 3:354) in, Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 54. See also Loudovikos, A Eucharistic Ontology. 23 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.4; 2.6.2, “when even dumb animals tremble and yield at the invocation of His name”; 4.20.1; 2.1:1; 3.16.6 “summing up all things in Himself.”; 2.11.1; 3.8.3; 4.20.6; 4.9.1. 24 Athanasius, On the Incarnation, S: 8:1; see also, Basil who informs us that nothing is outside God’s providence or neglected by him, Hexaemeron, 8: 5. CANNPNF 2-08. In a moment of inspired perception, which points to God’s constant involvement in creation, Maximus states, “God, properly speaking, is everything” Maximus, Scholia on the Divine Names 4.25 PG. 4. 296BC. This

30

Chapter Two

this has developed into an understanding that “everything is in God.”25 By choosing to create, fill and sustain all things, the Christian God of the Fathers is a God who is intimately connected to His creatures, unlike the gods of the heretics.26 One question to ask here is if it is feasible that God the Father of all created beings would create any of His creatures in order for them to suffer. On reading the various patristic texts on Genesis, it would appear that this is not the case for there is consensus on the innate harmony, unity and violence-free peaceableness of the original Edenic life. This indicates that we ought to be cautious of teachings, which stress that the animal creation is solely for the service of humankind. Whilst some might debate whether the inanimate creation has awareness, if we examine contemporary scientific research, we learn that many animal species are sentient i.e. have intelligence, cognition and selfawareness. 27 This would seem to confirm St. Irenaeus’s teaching some 2000 years earlier, that God “confers on all a profound mental intuition and perception”: Yet all [beings] do know this one fact at least, because reason, implanted in their minds, moves them, and reveals to them [the truth] that there is one God, the Lord of all.28

Leaving aside discussions on animals as cognisant, rational beings,29 if we accept the traditional Eastern Orthodox teachings that God has a loving and compassionate relationship with each of His created beings, this opens theological space for developing an argument for animals having a



restates Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.2.5; also, Maximus, Amb 7 c.f. 1 Cor 15:28; Cyril of Jerusalem, Homily 6:8; Ps 85:9. 25 Known as Panentheism. 26 E.g. Valentinus and the unbegotten Dyad-Proarch, which had nothing to do with creation of our world (kenoma) and was the result of ungovernable passions of a lower Aeon-Sophia, see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.3. 27 This includes vertebrates including fish and invertebrates such as cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. Numerous scientific papers prove that they also have the capacity to feel pain, fear, joy, etc. See, Low, et al in their “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness” in Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012 The Declaration. This was signed by the conference participants and memorialized by CBS ‘60 Minutes’ http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf 28 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.6.1-2; 2.13.7; 4.6.7. Remember his previous teaching: “Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced” 2.2:5. See also Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymns on the Nativity and Feast of Epiphany. 29 See Chapter Nine.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

31

spiritual relationship with God. There are numerous biblical and patristic teachings where “the earth” and at times animals are portrayed as praising and knowing God, to support the point. Theokritoff (2009) and Gschwandtner (2012) provide numerous examples of this spiritual insight in ecclesial texts relating to the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection; where the entire created world is depicted as reacting to these salvific events with clear statements that the earth and all that is in it, recognizes and knows God.30 All things proclaim your greatness and your strength.31 The whole creation was altered by Thy Passion: for all things suffered with Thee, knowing, O Word, that Thou holdest all in unity.32

Despite the fact that animals are not specifically mentioned in the new ecclesial text for the environment33 we are nonetheless informed that “all things” and the “whole earth” sings Gods praise and importantly, that they are to be protected “from every abuse”: You give life to all and conduct all things with ineffable judgments; from harmful pollutions and from every abuse save those who cry out, “God of our fathers, blessed are you!” By your will, Lord, you adorned the heavens with stars, while you made the whole earth fair with flowers and trees as it sings, “God of our fathers, blessed are you.” 34

We have therefore a tradition originating in the early Church, confirmed in biblical texts and lasting until today, of all created beings knowing God, calling to God and blessing and praising God. They appear to have the capacity to do so independently of humans and reinforce arguments relating to an animal’s individual integrity and agency. This statement will no doubt be challenged using similar arguments to this quote by St. Leontios of Cyprus:

 30

See Chapter Three. Mode 4, Joseph was amazed in, Mikrayiannanites, “Vespers for the Environment,” 386. 32 E.g. Holy Saturday, Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, The Lenton Triodion, 625, 627; See also Col. 1:16-17. 33 Please note that there is only one mention of a plant. 34 Mikrayiannanites, 392. 31

32

Chapter Two Creation does not venerate the Maker directly and by itself, but it is through me that the heavens declare the glory of God. 35

However, whilst this is also a traditional teaching, numerous biblical and patristic texts indicate that it is not the only tradition available to us. The Fathers also inform us that God is both transcendent and immanent in and through all of His creation. The doctrinal developments of ‘creation out of nothing’-ex ouk onton, ex nihilo 36 and the Trinity, support this traditional teaching of the absolute difference between God and His creation whilst reiterating their intimate relationship. It is commonplace in Orthodoxy for the Fathers to repeat the teachings of their forbears as ‘innovation’ was treated with suspicion.37 The repeated use of such texts therefore gives us an insight into the mind of the Fathers, who at the very least, acknowledge that all creation has a spiritual relationship with God and thus a degree of conscious knowledge of God and of equal importance, that they are part of the divine salvific plan. I advance the opinion that if we alter our focus from the human to God’s other created beings, such texts indicate not only a shared ontological relationship with God but also a level of spiritual relationship and a degree of conscious knowledge of God by all created beings.38 This leads to the challenging points of whether humanity is always necessary for God to communicate with His creation and equally, if creation needs humanity in order to know, praise, worship and cry out to God. If we deny the possibility of direct communication between God and any of His creatures, we impose limits on God, which is akin to the heresies the Fathers fought so hard to defeat. This is an important point, which speaks to the problem of separating the rest of creation from God. Having established that God creates in order to share His loving-kindness;



35 Leontius of Cyprus, Fifth Homily of Christian Apologetics, PG 93:1604B c.f. Theokritoff, G. “The Cosmology of the Eucharist” in Chryssavgis & Foltz, 133. 36 The first mention of this is in 2 Maccabees 7.27-29, cited in Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology, 35. For a more detailed study, see Louth, “Theology of Creation in Orthodoxy,” 51-76. The concept of spontaneous generation (created from nothing) is frequently used by Aristotle in The History of Animals, part 15, e.g. Testaceans – prophyrae, murices, stromboids – trumpet-shell, mussel, oysters, cockles, clams, razor-fish, crabs, sea-nettles, sponges, eels etc. St. Basil repeats his teachings in The Hexaemeron; See also Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.10. 37 E.g., Athanasius and the use of Homoousian, in Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 46. See also Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 235. 38 I do not suggest that creation knows the Creator in the same way as He knows them but rather, that from the biblical and patristic texts and tradition, creation is in some sense aware of its Creator.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

33

that all things have a “profound mental intuition and perception of God”39 and that they love, praise and worship Him, I believe I have partially answered my earlier question of whether it is likely that God creates His creatures in order for them to suffer.

God: The Source of All Goodness The traditional Eastern Orthodox teaching is that we as Image are to strive to achieve the ‘Image and Likeness’ of an all-loving God by emulating His ‘qualities’ in our lives.40 Through St. Irenaeus and others, we learn that the Archetype is “the source of all that is good”41 and “has in Himself the disposition [to show kindness], because He is good”.42 God is “patient, benign, merciful, mighty to save.”43 We also learn that he who “worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him” 44 for God “has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.”45 St. Irenaeus also teaches that God is desirous of “mercy not sacrifice”46 and that God’s instruction “can never be exhausted.”47 These and numerous other examples of the types of behaviour and qualities that we as Image are to emulate are common in patristic texts. Crucially for this theme, St. Ephrem specifically acknowledges a tradition where God’s mercy extends to non-human beings: Good One, who in Your mercy sustain beings: above and those below and distribute the treasure of Your mercy to men and animals. 48

God’s loving, merciful and providential care for animals is not only taught by the Fathers such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who teaches that as

 39

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.6.1. Irenaeus, “The Doctrine of the Apostolic Preaching,” 32-4, 100. In, Stevenson, 120; see also Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.10. 41 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.13.3; 4.11.2. 42 Irenaeus, 2.29.2; 2.30.9. 43 Irenaeus, 3.20. 44 Irenaeus, 3.12.7. 45 Irenaeus, 3.6.1. 46 Irenaeus, 4.17.4. I discuss sacrifice presently. 47 Irenaeus, 2.28.3; 2.13.9. 48 Ephrem the Syrian, Table Blessings, Memra IX in Hansbury, Hymns of St Ephrem the Syrian, 36. 40

34

Chapter Two

the Father provides for animals, so too should we, 49 but also in the Psalms50 and New Testament: Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.51

The Fathers are equally clear that a God Who is the source of all love, compassion, mercy and goodness is “without blame, and worketh no evil,”52 nor cruel, abusive, exploitative or evil.53 This too is an important part of reflecting the ‘Image and Likeness’ of God. In light of what we know of God, it would be incongruous to suggest that He would be indifferent to the suffering of any of His created beings. St. Clement makes a similar point and highlights the resulting soteriological implications of failing to reflect the Image: For the Lord pities, instructs, exhorts, admonishes, saves, shields…That we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world…Is it not then monstrous…that while God is ceaselessly exhorting us to virtue, we should spurn His kindness and reject salvation. 54

St. Maximus adds further support to this soteriological argument. He is equally clear on the link between unrighteous and ungodly behaviours with sin and the resulting negative implications for humanity: The road of the virtues…in no way admits of any stalling on the part of those who walk in it…and the immobility of virtue is the beginning of vice.55

Interestingly, teachings on the virtues are not restricted to humans as evidenced in this teaching by St. John Climacus: …while vices and passions are not in us by nature, the virtues, including Faith, Hope and Love, are set in us from God by nature, are even to be seen in the animals.56



49 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies Homily 7:6; See also Mt 10:29-30; Mt 6: 26; Lk 12:6; Jn 5: 17. 50 Ps 103:10-21. See also Psalms 35:7, 49:10-14; 144:9; 145:9; 146:9. 51 Mt 6:26. See also 2 Cor 1:3. 52 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.18.3. 53 Clement, Exhortation to the Heathen, CANNPNF O2-1. 54 Clement, Exhortation to the Heathen, CANNPNF O2-1. 55 Maximus, Ad Thalassium 17: On Spiritual Progress in Virtue CCSG 7:111-115. See also Blowers and Wilken, Ad. Thalassium, 105-108, especially note 1, 106; see also Ambiguum 7, 58, 66.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

35

Again, there is evidence of a tradition of recognising some form of consciousness in animals that is well above that of basic intelligence or reasoning.57 Whilst acknowledging that it is not through good and virtuous acts alone that human beings obtain salvation58 it is argued that there is an Eastern Orthodox tradition which teaches that such acts reveal a genuine attempt to retrieve our pre-lapsarian and violence-free nature. Through a process of perpetual striving (İʌȑțIJĮıȚȢ) to regain our original nature, we are able to live virtuously and lovingly, in a godly, compassionate way and this is nowhere more strikingly evident than in the lives of many saints.59 Such a tradition I submit, stands in stark contrast to the multitude of sinful cruel, abusive and exploitative actions perpetrated upon animals in our contemporary world and as such, it is entirely plausible to argue that animal suffering is against God’s will. It seems reasonable therefore to state that we as Image should not exhibit any negative qualities or types of behaviour in our lives. Rather, we are to be at peace and forego violence to all60; exercise loving-kindness; practise the virtues and acquire a contrite heart through repentance. We are to listen to and follow God’s Word and to pour out compassion and mercy on ‘all things’ rather than indulging our passions in evil, violent acts which serve only to destroy other beings, their environments and eventually ourselves-be that as individuals or collectively as a species. In essence, “As far as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible.”61 To support my argument for a violence-free world I examine some specific biblical texts.

A World Free of Suffering: Compassion and Mercy to Animals Papavassiliou (2013) summarizes the different Christian theological interpretations of Genesis: those who dismiss Genesis as a myth of the prescientific world, those who try to work modern science into the creation narrative and those who take biblical texts literally as the Word of God. 62 He teaches that all three approaches are to some degree inaccurate for they view Genesis as an account of creation history rather than the traditional

 56

Climacus, J. Ladder of Divine Ascent, PG. 88, 1028AB in, Chitty, The Desert A City, 173. 57 See Chapter Nine. 58 Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality, 49-64. 59 I discuss the saints presently. See also Musurillo, From Glory to Glory. 60 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.18.3. 61 Clement, Paedagogus. 62 Papavassiliou, Theology of Genesis.

36

Chapter Two

Eastern Orthodox perspective of theological revelation. In essence, Genesis gives us a glimpse into who God is. 63 Whilst this is important for all Christians in our individual spiritual journeys towards salvation, it is of crucial importance to the subject of animal suffering and I give four reasons to support this statement. First, the revelations help us to ‘know’ more about God and His will and thus help us define our role as Image. Second, they help us determine which behaviours are and are not acceptable to God. Third, they establish that unrighteous and sinful behaviours are part of the criteria used to judge those who fail to repent and desist from evil ways. Fourth, God chooses a vegan diet for all of His created beings. This not only evidences the violence-free harmony of Edenic life, it also indicates the ideal diet. Had that not been the case, God would not have chosen this diet for us. I submit that we are to be ever mindful of this fact. The subject of how humans are to behave is a constant theme in the contemporary Eastern Orthodox theological debates on the environmental crisis, yet we rarely mention our behaviour towards animals.64 This work extends these theological discussions to the animals within those environs, in order to help us define our relationship and thus our treatment of them. If we believe that God’s theophany has a cosmic dimension and His relationship with all created beings is essentially a loving and compassionate one, this will determine, or at the very least, inform our own theological, ethical and moral positions in relation to our treatment and relationship with these beings. As previously stated, it is my submission that cruel, abusive and exploitative behaviours toward any of God’s creatures are contrary to God’s will and therefore are sinful acts, which have direct relevance for human salvation. This is important because until now we have failed to identify which acts are or are not sinful. As a result, some humans may not have realised that their actions are abusive and thus have no idea of the resulting negative soteriological implications. This would certainly be the case for ‘traditional’ practices such as sport or recreational hunting and bullfighting. By defining which actions are sinful, Eastern Orthodoxy can provide the opportunity of bringing people closer to God. This in turn would lead to a reduction in animal suffering, which will be welcomed, by those who suffer the abuse and those who witness it. Contemporary non-Orthodox discussions on our relationships and treatment of animals generally use terms such as care, protection, welfare,



63 For an investigation of Orthodox understanding of early Church texts on Genesis, see Bouteneff, Beginnings. 64 A rare exception is Keselopoulos “Creation as Communion” who argues that we may find guidance on how we are to behave and what we must sacrifice in, Chryssavgis & Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, 364.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

37

responsible ownership and rights. At the heart of these discussions are the concepts of love and compassion-the structural dynamics in the altruistic attempts to prevent animals from suffering at the hands of brutal people who for reasons of evil disposition, profit or ignorance, disregard the individual needs of animals. It is here that we first see our discussions having an affinity with the Scriptures, for as we have seen from the patristic teachings above, it is the same concepts of love and compassion from God that lie at the heart of the original suffering-free life described in Genesis. Creation is very good65 blessed 66 and entirely provided for by God.67 St. Athanasius states: [The Logos] extends [its] power everywhere, illuminating all things visible and invisible, containing and enclosing them in [itself], [giving] life and everything, everywhere, to each individually and to all together creating an exquisite single euphonious harmony.68

Met. Kallistos (2014) reaffirms these teachings and summarizes the traditional Eastern Orthodox belief that a reverence for animals and sensitivity to their suffering “certainly is part of our Orthodox Church faith.”69 Of equal importance to the acknowledgement that this harmonious communion is ruptured after the Fall, is the recognition of the mistranslation and misunderstanding of the word dominion. Genesis 1:26 – 27 70 and 2:19 71 are generally understood as God giving authority to humans over the rest of creation. Modern Eastern Orthodox scholarship accepts that the interpretation of dominion as domination is an error, as it fails to recognize God’s constraints on human freedom and ignores the blueprint of God as Archetype. H. A. H. Bartholomew informs us that his blueprint “by definition predetermines an analogous ethos that is imposed upon us.”72 This is an important teaching, which not only supports the premise that our

 65

Gn 1:8, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 2:3. Gn 1:22. 67 Gn 1:29-30; 6:21; Ps 103:11-14, 16-22; Ps 144:9; Ps 146:9; Mt 6:26; Lk 9:58, 12:6. 68 Athanasius, Contra Gentiles and De Incarnatione, 115. See also, Against the Heathen, S: 42 CANNPNF 2-04. See also Linzey, Animal Rites, 31 and Creatures of the Same God, 23. 69 Met. Kallistos of Diokleia, Oxford interview with Presbytera Christina, 2014, Chapter Six. 70 God creates ‘man’ in “Our Image.” 71 Adam names the animals. 72 Bartholomew, “Environment and Ethics.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 135. 66

38

Chapter Two

behaviours should reflect the Image and Likeness of God, but also acknowledges that some historical interpretations relevant to this subject are flawed.73 Met. Kallistos reflects the contemporary Orthodox view: It is said, that we are to have dominion as humans over the created order but dominion does not mean domination or ruthless tyranny. This dominion that humans are given is part of being in God’s Image, so what this means is that just as God cares for His creation and loves it, so we, after the image of God, are to care and love creation. This to me is the basic position of the Orthodox Church in regard to animals.74

This tradition stands in stark contrast to another flawed teaching exemplified by St. Aquinas (harking back to St. Augustine and Aristotle) who taught that the irrationality of non-human animals indicates that their only value lies in their use: set themselves in motion...by a kind of natural impulse, a sign of which is that they are naturally enslaved and accommodated to the uses of others.75

This ‘enslavement’ portrays a negative mind-set that inevitable creates the potential for negative relationships with animals. They are no longer beings of God but objects for our use. Such teachings stand in direct opposition to Eastern teachings on how our relationships with ‘all things’ should reflect the ‘Image and Likeness’ of an all-loving and compassionate God. St. Ephrem offers an example of this alternative Eastern Orthodox tradition and affirms the more reasoned and Christ-like approach of Met. Kallistos: You are not judge in creation, you have not dominion over the earth. If you love righteousness, reprove your soul and yourself. Be judge unto your own sins, and chastener of your own transgressions.76

 73

Recognition of errors in theological teachings is evidenced throughout the history of the Church. 74 Oxford interview, March 2014. 75 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “Whether it is Unlawful to Kill Any Living Thing” Second Part of the Second Part, (QQ. 1-189) Q. 64:1, Reply to Objection 2. It will be interesting to see how the Catholic Church reacts to Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si which challenges this traditional view and also acknowledges that Christians “have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures” LS: 67, 68, 117. 76 Ephrem, Three Homilies: On Admonition and Repentance.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

39

Rather than a declaration that we may use animals in any way we choose, I argue that we as Image moving towards Likeness should use animals in non-violent ways, which reflect God’s love, compassion and mercy to all created beings.77 We should condescend to love His creation as He loves us, thus rendering the end of abusive, sinful acts. I submit that God has provided us with specific behavioural guidance on aspects of animal protection in order that we fully cooperate with Him in preventing their suffering. The contention here is that teachings on God’s paternal love, compassion and mercy are an integral part of the basic framework of an Eastern Orthodox theological position on animal suffering. Patristic commentary establishes that God creates in order to be known and to share His love with His creation. It is important to note that God describes creation as He perceives it-in its own right and not in relation to its use for humanity. This is evident in Genesis, where animals receive the “breath of life” and God’s description of “good” and “very good.”78 Patristic and biblical commentary also informs us of God’s providential care for all things and I note that God provides a purely vegan diet, which in and of itself, indicates the peaceable, violence-free nature of the ideal relationship between God’s created beings before the Fall. On occasion, there is also evidence of an equivalence of care, the most obvious of which is God’s condescension to save a remnant of each species of animal, including those who we see as being of no value, from the Flood and His subsequent covenant with them all. 79 There are also specific teachings from Exodus and Deuteronomy regarding animal protection, which includes instructions to act in order to reduce animal suffering. In Exodus, we find two teachings that are striking because the instructions are to be undertaken even if the animal’s owner is an enemy: If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. 80

There is a similar teaching in Exodus 23:5 where compassion is also in play:

 77

To quote St. Gregory of Nyssa, use should not equate to misuse. Equally use should not equate to death. There are numerous non-harmful uses e.g. medical detection dogs are capable of smelling cancers or indicating to their owners that they are about to suffer fits or lose consciousness due to severe hypoglycemia and other illnesses giving them vital time to call for assistance, see: https://www.medicaldetectiondogs.org.uk. 78 Gn 1:20-22, 24-5, 30-31. 79 Gn 9: 9-10. 80 Ex 23: 4.

40

Chapter Two If you see your enemy’s donkey fallen beneath its load, you shall not walk away from it, but shall surely help him with it.

Such teachings emphasize the constant requirement to act with compassion and mercy to all created beings rather than indulging ourselves in the sinful passion of enmity. Significantly, Deuteronomy repeats these teachings, although here the animals belong to one’s family: When you see your brother’s young bull or his sheep wandering on the road, you should not ignore them: you shall certainly return them to your brother.81 You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his young bull fall down on the road and ignore them: you shall surely help him lift them up again. 82

Repetition of teachings to protect, rescue and behave compassionately to animals that are lost or in danger of injury, be they owned by one’s family, neighbour, stranger or one’s enemy83 is not to be ignored. They too are examples of the aforementioned behavioural guidance that we as Image are to emulate. If we apply these teachings to contemporary societies and include animals that are abandoned, we ought to be mindful of the above teachings before negatively labelling those in animal protection organisations who cooperate with God by acting in exactly the same compassionate ways. 84 Rather than viewing these workers with suspicion, we ought to engage and encourage people or organisations who rescue animals that are lost, abandoned or in need of loving homes, for they can legitimately be viewed as cooperating with God.85 Some might reject this point by arguing that the rescuing or taking animals into our homes and providing for them, is a modern phenomenon. This is not the case. Scripture provides us with a teaching on exactly these points: But if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring them to your own house and they shall remain with you until your brother seeks them: then you shall restore them to him.86

St. Gregory of Nyssa acknowledges early patristic affirmation of this teaching when asking:

 81

Dt 22:1; also, Dt 22:3. Dt 22:4. 83 Here we may legitimately add ‘stranger’. 84 Sentimentalism or indifference to human suffering is a frequent charge. 85 My Cyprus Case Study in Chapter Five examines the relationship between the Eastern Orthodox Church and animal protection groups on the island. 86 Dt 22:2. 82

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

41

Are we not willing to shelter pigs and dogs under our roof? 87

The significance of these texts for the subject of animals suffering in contemporary societies cannot be understated, for the abandonment of animals is one of the most intractable problems of animal protection and suffering throughout the world. In addition, whilst these teachings depict animals falling onto the road rather than into a pit, they are the foreshadowing of Christ’s teachings in Matthew and Luke. 88 As such, these texts not only give ethical and moral guidance but also emphasize the spiritual teaching within the texts.89 In addition, we see that equivalence of care, first expounded in Genesis, is repeated in both Exodus and Deuteronomy: Six days you shall labor and do all your works, but the seventh day…you shall do no work-you, your son and your daughter, your male servant, your female servant, your ox, your donkey, and all of your cattle, and your resident alien dwelling among you; that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.90

Such teachings indicate not only an equivalence of care and compassion but also that the Sabbath law is made for all created beings and importantly, that non-human animals may be viewed, as an extension of one’s family or household. This is an important point, which has relevance to later discussions on contemporary Eastern Orthodox teachings on extending justice, mercy and rights to the non-human animal creation.91 Further examples on compassion and mercy being extended to non-human animals are found in Dt 22: 6-7 where we are instructed that the mother of young birds must not be taken with the young; in Dt 22:10 where we should not plough with animals of uneven strength and in Dt 25:4 where working animals should not be muzzled.92 This is reinforced in

 87

Gregory of Nyssa, 2nd Homily On the Love of the Poor, 203. Mt 12:11-12; Lk 14:5. 89 I do not reject texts on ethical guidance for I believe they are essential for understanding our relationships and treatment of animals but I suggest there is also a deeper spiritual significance to these texts, which are equally important to our discussions. 90 Dt 5:13-14. See also Ex 23:12. There is a similar teaching in Ephrem’s Hymns on the Nativity. 91 Chapters Eight and Nine. 92 Linzey & Cohn-Sherbok, inform us that the 3rd century scholar Levi directly interpreted this “biblical legislation” to prove the morally advanced position of the Jewish people, Numbers Rabbah, 10.1, 17.5, After Noah, 30. 88

42

Chapter Two

Ps 144 which again informs us that God’s mercy extends to all, regardless of who receives it, “The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works”93; whilst Ps 35 gives testimony to God’s righteousness, judgment and mercy linked to the saving of animals: Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; Your judgements are a great deep; Men and cattle, You will save O Lord How you multiply Your mercy, O God. 94

That cattle are to be saved and that they are to receive mercy should concern us in light of the great suffering they endure in contemporary animal food production processes but I shall leave this discussion for a later chapter. The ‘rightness’ of these types of behaviour is further evidenced in the traditional Orthodox interpretation of Proverbs where a righteous man is identified as one who has “compassion on the lives of his cattle.” 95 From this, we may reasonably conclude that an ‘unrighteous man’ is one who lacks compassion for his animals. There is a patristic tradition of compassion and mercy to animals and the most famous commentary is from St. Isaac the Syrian who, we can argue, teaches that mercy is mercy, regardless of who receives it.96 There are however, less well-known texts, where he teaches on mercy, justice, compassion, non-violence and oppression.97 For example, he teaches us that the enactment of mercy brings us closer to God and importantly for this theme, of the criticisms we are likely to encounter because of such ascetic practices.98 In so doing, he gives an insight into another possible reason for the lack of Eastern Orthodox engagement on this particular theme:

 93

Ps 144:9, 36. Ps 35:7. 95 Pr 12:10. See St. John Chrysostom’s reference to this passage in relation to his comments on Holy people and kindness to animals in, Attwater, St. John Chrysostom, 59. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew text translates as “The righteous person knows the needs [nefesh, literally ‘soul’] of his animal” in Gross, “An Overview of Jewish Animal Ethics” paper given at the Animal Welfare and Religion Symposium, Winchester University, 2nd Nov, 2016 and based on his chapter “Jewish Animal Ethics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality, Ch. 26. 96 Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Homily 74. 97 Isaac, Six Treaties on the Behaviour of Excellence, Treatise 1, Ch. 8. In Mystic Treatises. 98 Breck and Met. John makes similar comments for contemporary ethicists. 94

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

43

There is nothing, which brings the heart so near unto God as mercy; and nothing, which gives peace to the mind as voluntary poverty. Many will scorn thee as an ignorant because of thy liberality and for thy giving thyself without stint for the sake of the fear of God; they will not call thee wise or steady of mind, because of thy asceticism.99

Of equal importance is St. Isaac’s teaching, “Oppression is eradicated by compassion and renunciation,” which is both a profound observation and of relevance to all forms of suffering. 100 For those who show compassion and mercy to animals, the criticisms and accusations of sentimentalism or indifference to human suffering is commonplace, yet research does not support either charge.101 Despite criticisms and scorn, St. Isaac urges us to persist, for it is only through love and compassion that evil in all its forms is overcome. Perhaps those who continue to extend their compassion and love to animals despite their detractors will take heart from these and the following teaching. Here St. Isaac offers a teaching on inclusivity, which extends to all of God’s created beings. This is another key component of an Eastern Orthodox position on animal suffering: And what is a merciful heart...the burning of the heart unto the whole creation, man, fowls and beasts, demons and whatever exists. So that by the recollection and the sight of them the eyes shed tears on account of the force of mercy which moves the heart by great compassion…Then the heart becomes weak and it is not able to bear hearing or examining injury or any insignificant suffering of anything in creation…And therefore, even in behalf of the irrational beings and the enemies of truth and even in behalf of those who do harm to it, at all time he offers prayers with tears that they may be guarded and strengthened: even in behalf of the kinds of reptiles, on account of his great compassion which is poured out in his heart without measure, after the example of God.102

 99

Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Ch. 1, 54. Again, the charge of sentimentalism against those who reflect God’s love and compassion towards animals comes to mind. Breck speaks of criticisms of ethicists by those who perceive them to be either too liberal or not liberal enough and I discuss this further in Chapter Nine. 100 Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Ch. 1, 63. 101 The opposite appears to be the case and I speak to this in Chapter Eight. 102 Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Ch. 1, Homily 74. For slightly different translations, see Lossky, Mystical Theology, 11 and Met. Kallistos (Ware) “The Soul in Greek Christianity” in, Crabbe, From Soul to Self, 49-69. Dr. Sebastian Brock, expert in Syriac studies, defines ‘compassionate’ as the closet to the original Syriac meaning.

44

Chapter Two

In Lossky, the translation has “all creatures” “can no longer bear to see or learn from others of any suffering, even the smallest pain being inflicted upon a creature.” In this teaching, St. Isaac draws us back to the key point of Image-mercy, love and compassion “are after the example of God.” We find similar commentary from Lossky on St. Gregory’s teaching that the Image of God is conceivable “through the idea of participation in the infinite goodness of God.” 103 Teachings on Image through participation in God’s goodness requiring a heart full of mercy and compassion “after the example of God” reaffirm my arguments both on behavioural guidance and the need to reflect that Image in our treatment of animals. It is through such participation and behaviours that oppression in all its forms is overcome. There are other sources to support St. Isaac’s teachings. For example, St. John Chrysostom observes that Holy people are loving and gentle in their dealings with animals, and by Theodore the Studite, who asks: Is not someone who sees a beast of burden being carried over a precipice seized with pity? 104

These teachings not only serve to highlight the spiritual interconnection between all created beings they are also important for recognising the need for engagement with our contemporaries who cooperate with God by rescuing animals from harm. Indeed, we might view the modern-day animal shelters/sanctuaries as contemporary examples of the Ark. A lesser-known commentary on compassion for animals and our exploitation of them comes from outside the patristic corpus. As there is increasing interest in contemporary Eastern Orthodox scholarship in Philo, I feel justified in incorporating this quote from his commentary on Leviticus 22:28 into this discussion. It speaks to both the physical and psychological suffering of farmed animals and opens the door to theological discussions on one of the largest causes of animal suffering in the contemporary world – the consumption of animal food products.105 Philo initially discusses the “cruel disposition” of those who separate mother and calves for “the pleasure of the belly” or “unpleasantness” of

 103

Lossky, Mystical Theology, 118. Catecheses 52, https://web.archive.org/web/20160305063629/ http:/anastasis.org.uk/. I remind the reader of St Ephrem’s teaching that God’s mercy extends to non-human animals in his Table Blessings. 105 I discuss this in detail in Chapter Nine. 104

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

45

the soul before stating the often repeated patristic teaching that just because some things are lawful this does not mean we should indulge our passion for them. 106 He then widens his discussion to incorporate the practice of virtue and compassion for animals: But you ought to be pre-eminent in temperance and the practice of all virtues…by which considerations you ought to be rendered humane…And why in addition to the pains the animal bears in parturition, should you inflict pains from external causes by the immediate separation of the nother from her offspring? For it is inevitable that she will resist and be indignant when they are thus parted by reason of the affection implanted by nature in every mother…and especially at the time of birth. 107

This early commentary on an Old Testament text which directly relates to the psychological suffering of animals seems quite remarkable for that fact alone, for there are many both in an outside of the contemporary Church who deny this possibility. This was not an isolated case, for we are informed by Gross (2016) that Leviticus was interpreted by Hebrew scholars as an act of God’s mercy and compassion for animals and refers to Cohen’s statement that compassion for animals in Jewish ethics is “categorical and undeniable...not a proposition to be proved.” 108 Philo continues with a discussion on the additional pain inflicted on the cow by the hardening of her “breasts” by this separation. …since at this time the breasts are full of milk-like springs, and then if through want of the child which is to suck them the flow of milk receives a check, they become hardened by being distended by the weight of the milk, and the mothers themselves are overwhelmed with pain. Therefore, says the law, give her offspring to the mother…to rear on her milk, and render not unprofitable those fountains of milk which nature has bestowed upon her breasts. 109

 106

E.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.37.4, is quoting St. Paul, 1 Cor 6:12 and 10:23. 107 Schochet, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition, 512-3. In Linzey & Cohn-Sherbok, After Noah, 31-2. 108 Gross in Cohen, Tsa’ar Ba’ale Hayim: The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. For a similar understanding, see Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 1-2 and Ch. 5 & 8. I am grateful to Prof. Baker for the Douglas reference. 109 Schochet, 152-3. Also, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Leviticus Rabbah, 17.11 (Midrash on Leviticus). In Linzey & Cohn-Sherbok, 31.

46

Chapter Two

Even at that time, the law is interpreted as to prevent the cow suffering. Cows continue to suffer mastitis because of the same practices110 and the suffering of maternal deprivation is graphically described in the undercover investigation conducted in Italy by one of leading international animal welfare charities showing calves left to starve to death in full sight of their mothers. 111 The example here is relevant to Philo’s comments. The aptly named ‘Herod System’ relates to the destruction of baby calves (the innocents in this context) who are produced yearly to enable the cow to produce milk for human consumption. One would be quite wrong to believe that all such killings are ‘humane’. Discussions on our over-consumption of food are evident in many early texts and some specifically warned us of our almost obsessive desire for food. This has obvious relevance not only for the abuse and for misuse of animals in contemporary farming practices and hunting but is highly applicable to today’s obesity crisis, 112 antibiotic resistance 113 and environmental damage.114 We often find such teachings in homilies on the poor where we frequently find links between the misuse of the poor and the misuse of creation. This quote from St. Gregory highlights the abuse of our freedom and crucially, is representative of patristic teachings on the limitations of that freedom: Use; do not misuse; so, too, Paul teaches you. Find your rest in temperate relaxation. Do not indulge in a frenzy of pleasures. Don’t make yourself a destroyer of absolutely all living things, whether they be four-footed and large or four-footed and small, birds, fish, exotic or common, a good bargain or expensive. The sweat of the hunter ought not to fill your stomach like a bottomless well that many men digging cannot fill. Our gourmands do not, in fact, spare even the bottom of the sea, nor do they limit themselves to the fish that swim in the water, but they also bring up the crawling marine beasts from the ocean bed and drag them to shore. One pillages the oyster banks, one pursues the sea urchin, one captures the creeping cuttlefish, one plucks the octopus from the rock it grips, one eradicates the molluscs from their pedestal. All animal species, those that

 110

Aaltola, 38. Also, Vernelli, “The Dark Side of Dairy–A Report on the UK Dairy Industry”; Butler, “White Lies.” 111 See Rawstorne, “Exposed–The Cruel Farms of Italy. Buffalos Submitted to Appalling Treatment.” 112 I discuss this further in Chapter Nine. 113 See http://www.cwf.org. The overuse of antibiotics in farming has caused the evolution of super-bugs, which are now resistant to antibiotics and a major health threat to humans. 114 For a science-based appraisal see Knight, “Animal Agriculture and Climate Change,” 254-256. I discuss this in Chapter Nine.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

47

swim in the surface waters or live in the depths of the sea, all are thus brought up into the atmosphere. The artful skills of the hedonist cleverly devise traps appropriate to each. 115

Note the negative language used to depict those who hunt both land and marine animals; describing them as “artful hedonists” who pillage, pursue, capture, pluck and eradicate. ‘Artful’ describes one who acts in a sly, cunning, crafty or wily way, seeking to attain one’s ends by guileful or devious means. Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the primary or most important intrinsic good and stands in opposition to the tenets of Christianity. This negative language indicates both ‘the mind’ of this Father and the misuse inherent in the acts. An important teaching of use to leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church is St. Maximus’s teaching that those who eat food for purposes other than for nourishment or healing are to be condemned as self-indulgent because they misuse God gifts. Importantly, he states “in all things misuse is a sin.”116 There are numerous contemporary studies detailing how our present levels of consumption and production of animal food products are not only the cause of high levels of suffering to animals and harmful to human health but also unsustainable from an environmental perspective and a significant factor in global warming.117 Texts such as those above indicate that God not only provided for the physical needs of all created beings but also extended His love, mercy and compassion to every creature. This stands in stark contrast to teachings in philosophy and theology, which deny these constructs to non-human animals either because they were based upon or influenced by, the discredited science, observations and opinions of philosophers such as Aristotle or theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas.118 Biblical and patristic teachings inform us that love, mercy and compassion are the keys to reducing suffering, not philosophical discussion on rationality or economic arguments for increasing prosperity for some, at the expense of animal suffering and continued life on this planet.

 115

Gregory of Nyssa, On Love for the Poor, 198. St. Maximus, Three Centuries on Love, No 86. 117 See Knight, A. “Animal Agriculture and Climate Change.” I discuss this in detail in Chapter Nine. For a modern theological perspective, see Pope Francis’s Encyclical, Laudato Si, particularly Ch. 3 The human roots of the ecological crisis. The Pope’s arguments reinforce patristic teachings and modern commentators such as H. A. H. Bartholomew, Met. John and Fr. John Chryssavgis. 118 This is a common argument in non-orthodox literature and not repeated here. For an Orthodox perspective (similar conclusions) see: Nicolaidis et al, “Science and Orthodox Christianity: An Overview,” 542-566. 116

48

Chapter Two

I advance the opinion that just as we have acknowledged that dominion interpreted as domination is an error, so too should we re-examine and reevaluate Church teachings on the use of God’s non-human animal beings. No longer should we interpret ‘use’ as a license for any and every type of use and certainly not for any abusive and exploitative practices. No longer should our liberty be used “as a cloak of maliciousness.”119 This is not a new request. Economou advocates this action in the 1990s in relation to our use of ‘nature.’ I advocate a similar process of re-evaluation but make it clear that this must include our teachings on our use of animals.120 The argument is that God did not create any of His creatures in order for them to suffer. If therefore, the use of animals’ results in suffering, it indicates that something is seriously wrong in the way we are using them. This is indeed a challenge for all of us but especially so for the leaders of the Church and its clergy whose role includes bringing the sinful human back to salvation, whilst protecting “all things” in God’s creation.

The Law: Dispensations Having outlined a framework of a theology for animals, which is based upon the premise of an all-loving, merciful, compassionate and relational God, I now examine God’s use of dispensations. I do so in an attempt to explain one of the most challenging questions arising in the animal suffering theme – why this all-loving and compassionate God allows the killing and consumption of non-human animals. Whilst I advance an opinion, which is as speculative as every other opinion and likely to receive critical engagement from my contemporaries, it is nonetheless based upon patristic and biblical texts and research from Jewish scholars, secular anthropologists and religious historians. 121 Significantly, when biblical and patristic texts are viewed through the lens of animal suffering

 119

Irenaeus, quoting St. Paul in Gal 5:13 in, Against Heresies, 4.37.4 and St. Peter in 1 Pt 2:16, in 4.16.5. I return to this point in Chapter Eight, as Bartholomew gives similar teachings. 120 Economou, “An Orthodox View of the Ecological Crisis,” 607-619. 121 For example: Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 who views “The biblical diet laws as an ethical system”; also, Shemesh, “Vegetarian Ideology in Talmudic Literature and Traditional Biblical Exegesis”; Douglas states that “the thought of Sinai is everpresent in Leviticus. The feudal relation of a lord with his vassals accounts for the requirement of human obedience and of responsibility for animal life,” Leviticus as Literature, 89; Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas; Spiegel, The Last Trial On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

49

rather than the normative view of anthropocentrism, a new perspective arises. Initially, there are several points to make before I attempt to answer the question. The first is that our discussion is set with a backdrop of an allloving and compassionate God. The second is that all commentators agree that the killing of non-human creatures was not part of God’s original plan.122 The third is to recognise that the answer is compound and complex with no ‘silver bullet’ answer that will address this complex issue. That said, I believe the answers lie within one specific area and that is in God’s use of dispensations. The examination therefore, encompasses several themes. I begin by examining patristic explanations for the original need for dispensations. These outline three main areas: their use as reminders of past sins, as moral discipline and as guidance towards salvation. I widen my sources when examining how God uses the despised practice of animal sacrifice to change the perception of animals that were once depicted as gods and linked to that, God’s use of this practice to place restrictions on human freedom, in order to limit the abuse to non-human animals whilst preventing the greater abuse of human sacrifice. It is also important in a world that seems to demand various forms of rights whilst ignoring the responsibilities which accompany them, to state that dispensations are not rights as we have come to understand them; they are a relaxation of an original ideal. St. Athanasius, by way of explanation on how Old Testament dispensations foreshadowed the greatest dispensation of all123 gives an insight into the original need for them: The human race then was wasting, God’s Image was being effaced, and his work ruined. Either, then, God must forego His spoken word by which man had incurred ruin; or that which had shared in the being of the Word must sink back again into destruction, in which case God’s Design would be defeated. What then? Was God’s Goodness to suffer this? But if so, why had man been made? It could have been weakness, not goodness on God’s part.124

The Fathers teach that God establishes the dispensation of death because of the human transgression in Eden and the outcome was both “monstrous and unseemly.” God could neither break His Word nor see His creation “go to ruin and turn again toward non-existence by the way of

 122

Gn 2:29-31, 8:17; 9:9-17. It is important to note that Christ’s Incarnation put an end to animal sacrifice. 124 Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word S: 6. Title, CANNPNF 2-04. Whilst this work relates to the dispensation of Christ, it nonetheless gives us an insight into their need. 123

50

Chapter Two

corruption.”125 St. Athanasius explains that despite human carelessness or “because of the deceitfulness of evil spirits”126 it was: not worthy of God’s goodness that the things He had made should waste away because of the deceit practised on men by the devil.127

In essence, he asks what else God could have done to save His creatures: So, as the rational creatures were wasting and such works in course of ruin, what was God in His goodness to do? Suffer corruption to prevail against them and death to hold them fast? For better were they not made, than once made, left to neglect and ruin.128

St. Maximus affirms this teaching and gives important clarity when stating that the Fall “became the occasion for God in his wisdom to work out our salvation.”129 St. Athanasius describes how humans devised “all manner of new evils in succession” and God’s foreknowledge of the depths of human wickedness and “insatiable sinning” which developed from Cain through to Noah and beyond, would have been an important factor in developing His salvific plan.130 This is confirmed in part by St. Irenaeus’s teaching that God was present with humankind in the various dispensations “from beginning to end.” 131 Importantly, St. Irenaeus also teaches that dispensations were “not established for righteous men”132 but to “furnish guidance”133 as a course of “moral discipline”134 and to remind humans of their propensity and insatiable desire to sin.135 This supports the earlier point on “behavioural guidance” as being part of God’s salvific plan and begins to draw our attention to God’s restrictions on human freedom. He also teaches that God’s dispensations were “bondage” for those with hardened hearts who had “abused their liberty” 136 by

 125

Athanasius, On the Incarnation S: 6.4. Athanasius, S: 6.5. 127 Athanasius, S: 6.5. 128 Athanasius, S: 6.7. 129 Maximus, Ambigua 7, 68. 130 Athanasius, On the Incarnation, S: 5.3. 131 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.12.13; 4.15.2. 132 Irenaeus, 4.15.3. 133 Irenaeus, 4.14.2. 134 Irenaeus, 3.20.2; 3.25.1. 135 Irenaeus, 4.15.1; 14.17.3; 4.16.3. 136 Irenaeus, 4.15.Title; 4.15.2, “they received from Moses this law of divorcement, adapted to their hard nature”; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho on sacrificing children to demons, Ch. 19. 126

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

51

abominations such as idol worship and in order to restrain and prevent humans apostatizing from God.137 but that, forgetting the idolatry of the Egyptians, they should be able to hear the voice of the Lord…But they obeyed not, nor harkened; but walked in the imaginations of their own evil heart, and went backwards, and not forwards.138

Unsurprisingly, patristic teachings are full of similar teachings on moral discipline as a route to salvation. When St. Ephrem teaches that certain laws were established as a physical reminder of past sins and as a warning to prevent future wickedness, he specifically links aspects of the law with animal idolatry, which he views as the abuse and loss of human freedom to sin.139 Importantly, “You shall have no other gods before Me” is the first of the Ten Commandments and Israel’s turning away from God and returning to idol worship, is a common theme in both Old Testament and patristic texts. Two quotes from Wisdom literature not only inform us “the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning, cause, and end of every evil”140 but also of the type of gods worshipped: The enemies of Your people worship the most hateful animals.141 They made a calf in Horeb and bowed down and worshiped the graven image; Thus, they changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eats grass. They forgot the God who saved them.142

St. Ephrem also gives us an insight into the widespread use of animal idolatry: the evil usage of the evil calf is from the Egyptians. The hateful sight of the hateful image of four faces is from the Hittites. Accursed disputation, that hidden moth, is from the Greeks. 143



137 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.15.2; 4.9.3, “and by means of the [successive] covenants, should gradually attain to perfect salvation”; also, Origen, Kata Kelsou, Bk. 1 Ch. II, where he explains that Jesus delays some of His teachings for they “were not yet capable of receiving it”. 138 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.17.3. 139 For example, St. Ephrem, Homily On Our Lord. 140 WSol 14:27. 141 WSol 15:18; 16:1 informs us that they were punished “through creatures like these” and “tormented by wild animals”; also, Athanasius, Against the Heathen for the “madness of idolatry” and animal worship, S: 9; S: 19.2; S: 20.3; S: 22.1; S: 23.3; S: 24.1. 142 Ps 105:19-21.

52

Chapter Two

There were therefore examples of ‘animal gods’ worshipped in multiple cultures and across the centuries. 144 Douglas (2001) draws our attention to a point on divine power and the competitiveness of religions when discussing the historical theological controversy about the right to take animal life. 145 If dispensations are to establish and secure God’s position as the only true God, it seems reasonable to propose that part of that process would require changing the perception of the animals being worshipped. An effective way of achieving this would be to use the human’s propensity to sacrifice to their gods and demand the sacrifice of the animals worshipped as deities. 146 This would destroy the notion of this type of divinity; reinforce the power and supremacy of the God of Israel, whilst at the same time, offering salvific guidance to the errant human creatures.147 Having outlined some of the reasons why God uses dispensations, I now turn specifically to the question of why the all-loving, relational God allows the killing of animals for sacrifice and for food. The most obvious answer is that God suddenly decided that this large section of creation was no longer worthy of love, compassion and mercy. I believe this to be the least satisfactory of answers as the Eastern Orthodox Tradition outlined above indicates that this was not the case. We are therefore in search of a more credible answer.

Noah: Protection and Failure Many early and contemporary commentators use Noah as evidence of God’s providential care for all creation, for through Noah’s obedience and cooperation a remnant of every species of God’s creation is rescued from harm. I have no objection to this teaching and in fact would add that through his cooperation with God’s will, Noah may in one sense be seen

 143

Ephrem the Syrian, The Pearl-Seven Hymns On The Faith 7:2; also, On Our Lord 6 and his comments concerning Israel, Moses and the worshipping of the calf. 144 Images of ‘animal gods’ are available at http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/amun.html. 145 Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, “Competition in the Holiness Stake,” 171-2. 146 For male gods the most important forms were the falcon, bull and ram. See http://www.britannica.com/topic/ancient-Egyptian-religion/The-Gods; also 147 Perhaps this adjustment in the perception of animals is part of the reason for the separation of humans from the rest of creation in later theological discourse, remnants of which are evident in the contemporary commentary presented in Chapter Seven.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

53

as the archetype for the modern animal protectionist who rescues animals from harm and provides for their needs, although ultimately this title lies with God. One could also view the teachings in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Luke on the care of animals as a continuation of God’s care and protection of all created beings first outlined in this narrative. However, when observed through the lens of animal suffering, there is more to this narrative than the traditional interpretation suggests. Despite the obvious beneficial outcomes of Noah’s cooperation with God, there is also evidence of Noah’s failure and sin when acting independently of God. This failure is the second example of the misuse of human freedom and of great significance to both the animal suffering theme and the challenging question before us. Despite the destruction of “all flesh” to erase corruption, unrighteousness and evil from the earth, Noah’s first independent act was to build an altar and kill many of the animals God had instructed him to save and protect. 148 The traditional understanding is that because God smelt and liked the sweet aroma of the sacrificed animals, God changed His mind and allowed humans to kill and eat animals. 149 There are two initial criticisms of this view. Firstly, the focus on aroma only highlights the first part of the verse whilst ignoring God’s important comments in the latter part. Secondly, it ignores the fact that God had only just reinforced the salvific purpose of the Ark by indicating that all creatures “may abound on the earth and increase and multiply.”150 The contradiction is obvious and opens theological space for further study. St. Irenaeus helps shed light on the ‘aroma’ problem via his discussions on the various laws and dispensations given by God for man’s welfare: He does Himself truly want none of these things, for He is always full of all good, and had in Himself all the odour of kindness, and every perfume of sweet-smelling savours, even before Moses existed.151

Whilst the smell of cooked meat has its enthusiasts, it is not credible to propose that the odour from sacrificed animals is good enough reason for God to suddenly change His mind and render the non-human animal

 148

Gn 8:20-21. Gn 8:21. A leading animal advocate and senior professor of an American university recently expressed this traditional interpretation of the text at the Catholic Concern for Animals conference on “Animal Advocacy in the Age of Laudato Si’” in 2018. 150 Gn 8:17. 151 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.15.3. 149

54

Chapter Two

creation subject to immense suffering and death. We are once again, in search of a more credible answer. When we examine the latter part of the same verse, rather than the dispensation to kill animals, we find a completely different scenario than that described above. The text informs us of the second occasion when God “thought it over,” the first occasion being just prior to the flood.152 Significantly, this reflection results not in God giving humans the authority to kill animals but rather, God’s immediate declaration that humans retain evil: I shall never again curse the earth because of man’s works, although the mind of man is diligently involved with evil things from his youth: nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.153

This is critically important for the animal suffering theme. Noah performs two acts. Firstly, he builds an alter which in and of itself is not cause for concern for he could have offered prayers and praise to God for saving a remnant of His creation. Noah’s second act is to slaughter some of the animals God has instructed him to save. Which of these two acts is likely to result in God acknowledging the continuing evil and sin in the minds of humankind? To help us, there is also a clear declaration from God that He does not intend to destroy any of His creation. I advance the opinion that making these statements immediately after Noah’s violent act of killing the non-human animals God had instructed him to save, challenges any interpretation that God was either happy or appeased by Noah’s killings. Indeed, one could argue that St. Athanasius’s arguments for why God initiated dispensations and the resulting “monstrous and unseemly” outcomes are also applicable here.154 The next element of Noah’s failure is set within the context of the traditional Eastern Orthodox understanding that Noah is also the first representative of the second race of men.155 This is not to state that there was a double creation as in the later Origenist cosmology but rather, that Noah as the chosen remnant of Adam, had the potential to re-establish the harmony of the pre-lapsarian world. By saving a remnant of each species, God had clearly indicated His desire and established the setting and potential, for the recreation of a violence-free paradise. What transpired from Noah’s first independent action was not the peaceful harmony

 152

Gn 8:21. God’s previous ‘reflection’ being just prior to God’s judgement and the flood which results in the destruction of all flesh upon the earth, Gn 6:5-6. 153 Gn 8:21. 154 Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word S: 6. Title; S: 6.4. 155 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.16.2; 4.36.4.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

55

desired by God but rather the repetition of human violence to His nonhuman creation. In killing the very creatures God had instructed him to save, Noah fails to grasp the second opportunity offered to humanity to live in harmony with God and His creation.156 It is surely no coincidence that at this precise point, God makes His profound statement on the continuation and propensity for evil in the corrupted human creature.157 The consequences of Noah’s failure: violent deaths and a repetition of the Fall, are all too evident until today. When viewed through the prism of animal suffering, evidence of the continued misuse and abuse of human freedom, which brings humanity into conflict with the rest of creation, is clear for all to see. In the original fall from grace, God imposed a curse on the ground as punishment for the abuse of human freedom.158 In this second Fall God adds fear to the mix: For the fear of you shall be upon all the wild animals of the earth, all the birds of heaven, all that move upon the earth, and all the fish of the sea.159

An important question to ask here is why God introduces fear of humans in other animals. If God had suddenly changed His mind from saving animals to wanting them killed as sacrifice and human food, this would surely be much easier to achieve if they were not running away in fear. Again, we must look for a more credible explanation. I propose that we view this act as a further dispensation of God’s grace, mercy and protection for the non-human creation who would be more likely to run and survive as a result of their fear. We may therefore view the imposition of fear as another form of God’s protection for His non-human beings and a type of damage limitation exercise. Before I begin my next point, it is important to reiterate that all commentators agree that the killing of non-human creatures was not part of God’s original plan as outlined in the violence–free life in Eden.160 It is also worth repeating that dispensations are not rights as we have come to understand them but rather the relaxation of an original ideal. As noted, I have argued that the vegan diet detailed in Gn 1:29 is evidence of the ideal and the dispensation to eat animal flesh a relaxation of that ideal. I argue that this dispensation is in order to aid the fallen human creature back to

 156

Gn 8:17, 9: 8-17. Gn 8:21. 158 Gn 3:17-19; 4:11-12. 159 Gn 9:2. 160 Gn 2:29-31, 8:17; 9:9-17. 157

Chapter Two

56

salvation and in order to prevent greater evils from occurring. This may at first sight, seem an unlikely proposition yet there are other examples, such the dispensation to divorce. The ideal is to become as one and to remain so until death and the dispensation to divorce given: Because of the hardness of your hearts he permitted these things to you; but from the beginning it was not so.161

This dispensation is a form of protection for women who would otherwise have been killed or sold.162 We must also note what took place in Numbers: 11.163 Despite God’s choice and provision of a plant-based diet for the Israelites wandering through the desert, they constantly demanded meat. There are two passages of relevance here: You shall eat, not one day, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days, but for a whole month you shall eat, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you disobeyed the Lord.164 Then the people stayed up all that day, all night, and all the next day, and gathered the birds…But while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the Lord’s anger was aroused against the people, and the Lord struck the people with a very great plague. So, he called the name of that place Graves of Lust, because there they buried the people who lusted. 165

The traditional teaching is that God is angry at their gluttony and ungratefulness. I do not reject that teaching but advance the opinion that it is also possible that part of God’s displeasure, is their rejection of His choice and provision of a violence-free diet for one, which demands the needless death of His other creatures. Teachings on gluttony are a common theme in patristic commentary and St. Gregory’s teaching on our misuse of food noted earlier and St Cyril’s teaching on how hunting is an example of the “pomp of the devil” “to serve their belly” are two examples. 166 When we consider the contemporary obesity crisis, the human and non-human ill health associated with animal-based food

 161

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.15.2 Dt 24. See OSB note to Dt 24:1-4. 163 In Nm 11:33 the eating of the migratory birds provokes God’s anger and human death. 164 Nm 11:19-20. 165 Nm 11:32-34. 166 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, First Mystagogical Catecheses, 6. 162

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

57

products 167 , the animal suffering involved in its production and the considerable environmental problems resulting from that diet, is it possible that the foreknowledge of God is also at play here? I submit that we ought to be ever mindful of the importance of God’s choice and provision of the vegan diet. Whilst we cannot say that the eating of animal flesh is a sin, we are to remember that it is a relaxation of God’s ideal diet-not a command. A further important point is that the dispensation to kill and eat nonhuman animals is conditional. It is set within a highly restrictive code of behaviour, which does not allow humans to kill with impunity. Within the sacrificial system, God imposes numerous restrictions on human freedom, which includes strict procedures, which includes the prohibition to consume their ‘lifeblood’.168 Gross states this acts “as a permanent symbol of the sanctity of life” which significantly limits the numbers killed. 169 Douglas adds that this system also prohibits the profane slaughter of animals, which would again significantly reduce the number of deaths170: Secular shedding of the blood of animals that are classed as sacrificeable is explicitly classed with shedding human blood.171 In Leviticus, the blood of all herd animals calls for vengeance unless slaughtered in the rite of sacrifice.172

These are important points. Equating the shedding of animal blood with the shedding of human blood has implications for teachings, which suggest that God’s commandment not to kill applies only to humans. The restriction that animals are only to be killed for sacrifice ought to raise questions on teachings that we can kill animals without restriction. Gross also informs us that these legal requirements also ensure that any suffering in the act of killing renders the animals unfit for consumption. He argues that this focuses the human on compassionate treatment, which in turn, would again limit the numbers killed. He informs us “diverse Jewish

 167

For example, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) infects cows through the recycling of infected bovine carcasses for meat and bone meal protein to other cattle. Eating meat from infected cows causes a fatal brain disease in humans called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. See also Chapter Nine. 168 Gn. 9:4. 169 Gross, “Jewish Animal Ethics.” 170 Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 68-9. 171 Douglas quotes Lev 17: 3-4 to make her point, 93; see Lev 7:20-21 for further restrictions on animal flesh consumption. 172 Douglas, 90.

58

Chapter Two

traditions argue that only men of high ethical caliber should be slaughterers (shoh’tim)–men who can resist the callousness that killing animals may engender.” 173 Milgrom concurs, arguing that such measures are examples of God protecting animals and a type of damage limitation exercise. 174 Further, those touching the carcass of an unclean animal “become guilty” (Lev 5:2-3) and cannot eat the flesh of the sacrifice or unsacrificed without atonement lest they be “cut off” (Lev 7:20-21; 17:3-5) which again restricts the consumption of non-human animal food. Milgrom provides similar arguments in his discussions on dietary laws: In effect, the rule against touching a dead animal protects it in its lifetime. Since its carcass cannot be skinned or dismembered, most of the ways in which it could be exploited are ruled out, so it is not worth breeding, hunting, or trapping. These unclean animals are safe from the secular as also from the sacred kitchen. The rule is a comprehensive command to respect the dead body of every land animal. If anyone were to take it seriously, it would be very restrictive.175

By establishing and demanding strict adherence to many detailed and ‘messy’ dietary laws and regulations on the slaughtering of animals, God effectively renders the acts of slaughter and sacrifice highly prohibitive.176 Importantly, any suffering in the killing of an animal renders the animals unfit for consumption or use such as clothing. Paradoxically, the sacrificial system is therefore, both a dispensation to extend and restrict human freedom. We are therefore to question any suggestion that God’s dispensation to kill animals for food is a right afforded to us simply because we are the most important of His creatures. As a backdrop to my next discussion on this theme, I again ask that we keep in mind the traditional Eastern Orthodox teachings on God’s foreknowledge of events. I submit that part of the answer to why God allows the dispensations to sacrifice and eat His non-human beings was not because such practices pleased Him but in order to prevent greater

 173

Gross, “Jewish Animal Ethics,” 4. The following undercover investigation highlights the inhumane actions and immense suffering of animals under the headline “Halal slaughtermen hacked sheep’s throats.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5456263/Men-chanted-tribal-style-dancekilled-sheep-spared-jail.html. 174 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 718, 33, 35, 36, 41; Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 137; Gn. 9:4-5. 175 Milgrom, in Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 142. 176 See Lev Ch. 1-11. Having lived in Pakistan, Bahrain and Indonesia I can confirm that the slaughtering of animals is neither quick, clean, nor a pleasant experience.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

59

evils. There is certainly biblical and patristic support for my argument that God did not want animal sacrifice and these four texts alone should throw into question the normative understanding of this narrative: He neither takes sacrifices from you nor commanded them at first to be offered because they are needful to Him, but because of your sins...in order that you...giving yourselves to Him, might not worship idols.177 Thus, says the Lord: “For I did not speak to your fathers, nor command them concerning whole burnt offerings and sacrifices in the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt. But I commanded them this word, saying, ‘Listen to My voice, and I will be to you as God...But they did not hear Me, nor did their ear attend. Instead, they stiffened their neck even more than their fathers.178 “...that I am the LORD, who doth exercise loving-kindness, and righteousness, and judgement in the earth;” He adds, “For in these things I delight, says the LORD,” but not in sacrifices, nor in holocausts, nor in oblations...”179 I desire mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings. 180

Many similar texts indicate that God neither demanded nor required animal sacrifice because it pleased Him. It is also important to restate St. Maximus’s teaching that God’s greatest dispensation, the Incarnation of Christ 181 brings the ritual slaughtering of non-human animals to an end and further indicates God’s will in this matter. God is however also clear on what He does require: a sacrifice of praise, for humans to live in righteousness and for humans to acquire and keep a loving and merciful heart. It is significant to note that the most holy of the Lord’s sacrifices is not animal sacrifice but one offering fine flour, oil and frankincense.182 Again, this is another non-violent ideal, which we ought not to dismiss. As such, I believe we may dispense with any suggestion that God’s dispensation to eat animal flesh was given because He was pleased with the practice.

 177

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 12. Jer 7:21-25. 179 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.17.3. 180 Irenaeus, 4.17.4, quoting Hosea; 4.14.3; also, Mic 6: 6-8. 181 Maximus, Ambiguum 7, 60. 182 Lev 2:1-3. 178

60

Chapter Two

We have learnt thus far that creatures were originally to live in peaceful harmony, to eat only the fruits of the earth and be in communion with God. God was pleased with his works; desired all beings to abound, increase and multiply on the earth and that God made covenants with them to that effect. Patristic teachings and biblical texts clearly show that God hated the practice of animal sacrifice, through which he recognized the continuing evil in His human creation. It seems reasonable to suggest therefore that there must have been a grave and momentous situation-an even greater sin to resolve-in order for God to overturn His original intentions. I am here reminded of St Athanasius’s question asking, “What was God to do?” when contemplating the use of dispensations after the first Fall. St. Irenaeus gives an insight into the apparent paradox, which lies before us when explaining that God is “calling them to things of primary importance by means of those which were secondary.”183 At this point, it is important to reiterate that in biblical terms humans are of primary importance; however, here it is extremely important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.184 In order to avoid doing so we must ensure that we do not interpret ‘secondary’ as having no value to God. St. Irenaeus’s teaching on the human innocents in Bethlehem slain as martyrs (secondary), in order to save Christ (primary), is helpful in this regard.185 A further example is the killing of the firstborn of the Egyptian nation but substituting the slaughtered Passover lamb for the first-born humans of Israel.186 We are also to keep in mind that despite the primary positioning, God also gives examples of equal treatment: the sanctification of both the “first-begotten” of man and cattle187; His providential love, protection and provision of food in Eden; the covenants for all creatures in Gen 9:9-17 and calls for protection in Luke 14:5. 188 This opens theological space for the possibility that God allows animal sacrifice (the secondary evil) in order to prevent the greater (primary) evil of human sacrifice. Goldin speaks to the point:

 183

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.14.3. For example, the mistranslation or misinterpretation of dominion as domination or the teachings of Aristotle/Augustine/Aquinas, that irrational non-human animals are naturally slaves for human use. 185 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.16.4. 186 Ex 13:15. 187 Ex 13:1. 188 In the original Greek. 184

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

61

As everyone knows, nothing could be more repugnant to the God of Israel than human sacrifice.189

However shocking human sacrifice might seem, there is biblical and patristic evidence to support my point: Jephthah’s vow of human sacrifice in return for God’s favours “I will offer him up for a whole burnt offering” 190 ; of “child-murdering rites of initiation” 191 ; of children slaughtered and burnt “for their idols” 192 and from many other biblical texts: They also sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons and shed innocent blood. The blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the graven images of Canaan; so, the land was polluted with their blood.193 For every abomination the Lord hates they have done with their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.194 Because they forsook me...and because the kings of Judah filled this place with the blood of the innocent and built high places for Baal so as to burn up their sons in the fire, which things I did not command or speak, nor consider in My heart.195 ...there has been nothing comparable anywhere, under all the heavens, as to that which has been done in Jerusalem: “that a man eats the flesh of his son and the flesh of his daughter.”196

Perhaps the most widely known example is in the Abrahamic narrative where at the last minute the human sacrifice is replaced with that of the non-human.197 Whilst God did not follow through His request for Isaac’s sacrifice, Abraham’s lack of objection to this abomination may be an indication of how widespread this practice was in the surrounding cultures,

 189

Goldin in Spiegel, The Last Trial, xvii. Jdg 11:29, 38. 191 WSol 14:23. 192 Ezk 23:37-39. 193 Ps 105: 37-38 194 Dt 12:31; 18:10-12. 195 Jer 19:4-5, 9. 196 Bar 2:2-3; also, Mic 3:1-3, 6:6-8; 4 Kg 6:28-29, 16:3, 21:6, 23:10; Lam 4:10, Ezk 5:10-11; Dt 28:53-57; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 19, 133. 197 Gn 22:2. 190

62

Chapter Two

perhaps even within his own. 198 In her discussions on the sanctity of animal life, Douglas informs us that there had been water and land born traffic over the region “for millennia” and that the “priestly editors” of the biblical texts were well acquainted with “old oriental controversies.”199 If this were the case, we might better understand Abraham’s lack of objection. To support this point, St. Athanasius informs us that human sacrifice was common among many communities and lists the Scythians, Phoenicians, Cretans, Romans and Egyptians200 who “without exception committed and incurred the pollution”.201 St. Athanasius’s teaching that human sacrifice was “the ready source of numerous evils to mankind” 202 both confirms the practice and links us back to my earlier points on idol worship, Noah and God’s foreknowledge of the manifestation of this human abomination. He also informs us of the “pitch of irreligion and folly”203 that led to the abomination of human sacrifice and that those who participated in such rituals “frustrate the kindness of Providence by their own brutal character.”204 He states quite clearly that such practices are not simply the result of barbarous natures but as a “special result of the wickedness connected with idols and false gods” which resulted in the thinning of humankind “by murders of grown men and children.” 205 Whilst we cannot be sure of the numbers involved, St. Athanasius’s reference to humankind being thinned by human sacrifice is indicative of large numbers and common practice.

 198

Jos 24:2. Idolatry is also connected with Chaldean astrology and Abraham’s ancestry, The Old Testament Hebrew & English Bible, Book of Jubilees, xi. Philo On Abraham, xvii, also comments upon Abraham’s revolt against astrology in connection with Gn 15:5 where via a vision, Abraham learns the falseness of astrological predictions. The Book of Jubilees, (sometimes referred to as Lesser Genesis, Leptogenesis), is considered one of the pseudepigrapha by Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches but as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It was well known to early Christians and evidenced in the writings of Epiphanius, Justin Martyr and Origen, who refers to it in Kato Kelsou 1. Wegner states such works are important sources for information on “the social dimension of early Judaism.” 199 Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 173-4. 200 Athanasius, Against the Heathen S: 25.1-3. Also, Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas. Douglas confirm this practice. 201 Athanasius, Against the Heathen, S: 25.3. 202 Athanasius, S: 25.4. 203 Athanasius, S: 25.1-4. 204 Athanasius, S: 25.2; also, S: 10.2 for lowering the title of deity to females and S: 10.4 for Zeus born of a cannibal father. 205 Athanasius, Against the Heathen S: 25.4.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

63

God’s knowledge of past human wickedness and continual evil 206 together with His foreknowledge of continued human evil and abominable practices is part of the answer to why God allows the sacrifice and consumption of His non-human creatures. It is His desire to prevent the greater abomination of human sacrifice and in order to facilitate human salvation. There are several biblical texts testifying to this abuse of human freedom. Bar 2:3 informs us that children are eaten in the siege of Jerusalem and sacrificed to the god Molech. Certainly, there is evidence of the knowledge of cannibalism for God threatens this as a form of punishment for the sacrificing of children to Baal and Molech.207 Whilst there is debate as to whether or not Molech was a god or the name of the practice of sacrificing infants and children, the key point here is that child sacrifice and consumption took place. Whilst I cannot state that human sacrifice always leads to the consumption of the human as food, Eliade (1981) informs us of the historical evidence of human sacrifice and the consumption of human meat. One can only speculate that it may have become more commonplace if the dispensation to sacrifice and eat animals had not been given.208 In light of the above discussion, I believe it is entirely plausible to reject the notion that God was in any way pleased with animal sacrifice or the consumption of creaturely flesh. It was instead a dispensation to those with hardened hearts and part of God’s salvific plan for his sinful human creature. As a result, I believe we should re-examine theological teachings, which suggest that the non-human animal creation was created for the provision of food for humans. I acknowledge that my attempt to answer the extremely challenging question of why an all-loving and compassionate God allows the killing and consumption of animals is both speculative and challenging. Whilst acknowledging the complexity of the question and that there is a great deal more to say, I submit that the outline above gives an indication of how one might use a theology of love and

 206

Gn 6:5-7. It is also important to note that human sacrifice and cannibalism arise even until today, as was the case in Kalimantan (Borneo) when I was living there in 2000/1. A French journalist asked me to investigate why the Dayak tribe of Kalimantan had suddenly reverted to cannibalism. This was so widespread that the U.N. had to evacuate the Madurese tribe from several of the surrounding islands. There is also evidence of reports of cannibalism in African conflicts: http://newobserveronline.com/cannibalism-still-stalks-african-conflict. Also, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/sleeping-with-cannibals-128958913/#o83p SOARkCdCM4x2.99. 208 Is this where the sweet-smelling aroma of animal flesh has its use? 207

64

Chapter Two

compassion for animals to address this and other challenging theological and spiritual questions within the animal suffering theme.

Chapter Two Summary Thus far, I have provided evidence that compassionate care and concern for animals is among the oldest themes in the Bible, thus validating contemporary theological discussions of the subject of animal suffering. I have also provided evidence on how the Fathers recognized the phrase “all things” means exactly that and that “our world must be embraced.” Crucially, the Fathers recognized that “nothing in creation had gone astray...save the human being only” whilst the rest of God’s creatures “persevere in willing subjection” to God. Such teachings may well give an insight into why the Fathers’ teachings were focused on the human being and so little on the suffering of animals. It was not their lack of concern for animals but rather the recognition that God’s instructions and dispensations were required for the only sinful creature. I have also provided evidence of ‘ancient voices’ who speak of love and compassionate concern for animals, together with the recognition that “the whole world was ransomed,” sanctified and redeemed by Christ through His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. It is my suggestion that our treatment of animals and choices relating to our diet ought to be mindful of such evidence. I have stated that there are examples in both biblical and patristic texts of acceptable and unacceptable types of behaviour and that we as Image striving towards the Likeness of God are to emulate only those behaviours, which reflect the Archetype. I have presented evidence that this Archetype is the source of all love and goodness, Who creates in order to share in loving relationship with ‘all things’ in His creation. I have also presented evidence that God is known and praised by ‘all things’ and that He in turn knows and loves all things via some form of reciprocal spiritual relationship. This relationship is accomplished at times without the mediation of the human creature. This too should focus our attention on our role as responsible guardians of ‘all things’ who are known, in relationship and loved by God. I have shown that God’s love, compassion and mercy, extends to nonhuman animal beings and that He desires them to be free of suffering and living in peaceful harmony with His human creatures. I have established that non-human animal beings are to be cared for and protected and at times, there is evidence of God’s ‘equivalence of care’ for His human and

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

65

non-human creatures.209 We are instructed to provide shelter and provision and to be responsible for the animal’s welfare until the owner can be found. There is no suggestion that we as individuals should pass ‘the problem’ on to someone else. In contemporary terms this would equate to teachings that we should not ignore abandoned or neglected companion or working animals as is so often the case but rather, to act by taking responsibility for them in order to alleviate or prevent further suffering. In essence, we are to cooperate with God by acting in ways that reflect God’s ‘Image of Care’ for His creation and an iconic example of this, in part, is Noah. I argue that despite our distorted Image in this fallen world we are to strive to become the Likeness of God. We are urged to practice loving kindness, compassion and mercy to all of God’s creatures rather than indulging our passions in acts of oppressive domination and gluttony, which inevitably leads to the suffering and destruction of the non-human creation and their environments. Part of our role is to recognise our responsibility to facilitate the flourishing of all species and to prevent their suffering in this fallen world. Our role is to till and keep, not abuse and destroy. Many sub-themes link to the challenging question of why God allows the killing and consumption of non-human animals and some are discussed in this chapter: The recognition of the continuing evil in the mind of the human creature and a failure to grasp the opportunity to recreate a pre-lapsarian state of righteous harmony after the Flood. Part of God’s plan was to guide Israel to salvation. Sacrifice was a constant reminder to the Jews of God’s law210 and a reinforcement of God’s power over false gods and idols. Sacrifice altered the perception of animals once depicted as gods and is used to overcome the even greater abominations and evils of human sacrifice and the consumption of human flesh. I have stated that God recognises Noah’s failure and ‘man’s continuing evil, through Noah’s independent act of killing some of the animals God has asked him to save. I have also stated that instead of any form of animal sacrifice, God requires mercy, righteousness, compassion and a contrite, repentant heart. It is important to restate the Maximian teaching that God’s greatest dispensation, the Incarnation of the all-loving God 211 brings the ritual slaughtering of non-human animals to an end. I believe that this too indicates God’s will in this matter. I have argued that by establishing and demanding strict adherence to many detailed and messy dietary laws and

 209

See Chapter Three. Jdg 6:8-10; 1 Kg 10:18-19; Ps 80: 10-11; Jer 11: 1-10; Mic 6: 4-8. 211 Maximus, Ambiguum 7, 60. 210

66

Chapter Two

regulations on how animals are to be slaughtered, God effectively renders the acts of slaughter and sacrifice prohibitive thus restricting human freedom and the number of animals killed. Certainly, such restrictions are not adhered to by Christians212 which in and of itself has led to a great increase in the suffering of animals both in how they are reared and how they are killed. I have acknowledged that if there is a genuine need we are allowed to kill animals; however, I submit that a theology of love set within the biblical context, ought to highlight and promote the original dietary ideal. I emphasize that the dispensation to kill animals for food is not a command but a choice, which if enacted, ought to be with restraint. Any suffering in the killing of an animal renders the animals unfit for consumption and uses such as clothing. Scholars such as Milgrom and Douglas affirm these points when recognising that the rule preventing the touching of animals that have not been sacrificed renders an animal’s skin, fur, bones, teeth and internal organs useless. This translates into teachings, which are highly significant for the ways animals are used. For example, it would not allow animals to be killed or abused simply to feed our gluttony or vanity. It is important to emphasise that these dispensations are not rights but a relaxation of an ideal which were given not to righteous men but to those whose hearts were hardened and retained the propensity to sin. I submit that God’s original dietary choice is the wisest choice for His creation and is why God chose it for us. Biblical and patristic teachings also inform us that whilst some actions may be lawful they are not necessarily expedient. Importantly, we must “not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness.”213 A theology of love for “all things” would promote the fact that at no time were we given permission to kill animals to indulge the passions and sins of greed or blood lust. It promotes the ideal that we are to treat animals with love, compassion and mercy both when they are living and if they have to be killed. This stands in stark contrast to the contemporary practices of animal food/ fur production and slaughter, where the animal’s physical and psychological needs are discounted in favour of “evil profit” or human ego. 214 In light of the above arguments, I advance the opinion that the use of dispensations remains part of God’s salvific ‘route-map’ of behavioural guidance for today’s world. By limiting human freedom in these ways,

 212

Acts 10:12-15 is an obvious criticism here but Origen argues that Peter was in need of this vision in order to break away from parts of the Jewish tradition he continued to practice, Origen, Kata Kelsou, 2.1, 2. 213 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, quoting St. Paul (4.37.4) and St. Peter (4.16.5). 214 Comment by Met. Kallistos in our 2014 interview in Chapter Six.

Ancient Voices: The Old Testament

67

God outlines a path for the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Church, which facilitates both the promotion of its spiritual message and its ability to speak with an authoritative voice on behalf of God’s non-human creation.215 The question to ask here is in what ways may the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church act in order to facilitate the urgently required metanoia in the human heart? I offer several practical suggestions: 1) By promoting the vegan/vegetarian diet as the dietary ideal, the Church reiterates God’s original intent; the concept of ascesis and the contemporary science, which highlights the damage caused by an animal-based diet to humans, animals and the planet. 2) By prohibiting intensive farming practices on Church land, in order to reinforce and live-out its desire to prevent animal suffering and promote animal flourishing. 3) Restating patristic teachings on the negative soteriological consequences of hunting. 4) Prohibiting hunting on its land in order to protect the animals and in order to guide humans away from evil practices and towards salvation. Skeet clubs can be the substitute offered as a dispensation in order to facilitate the salvific plan. 216 5) Define the wearing of fur as an example of human ego and sin. If these suggestions are promoted, it would significantly reduce animal suffering and have immediate impact upon the suffering world. If I am correct in my assertions that an all-loving and compassionate God is concerned about the suffering of all of His created beings, then we should expect to find evidence of this being repeated in the New Testament.

 215

Bartholomew, “Caretaker of the Environment.” Bishop Isaias uses this ‘dispensation model’, see Chapter Seven. The Holy Synod of Greece has ordered a total ban on the use of weapons by the clergy and hunting is no exception. See the following website for a somewhat poorly informed debate. http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/9263-the-holy-synod-of-greecedisarms-the-clergymen-hunters/?hl=animals#entry120307. 216

CHAPTER THREE ANCIENT VOICES: THE NEW TESTAMENT

Overview Chapter Three repeats the thematic approach and presents further teachings, which confirm that concern and compassion for animals is not a modern phenomenon but one found in the earliest periods of the Christian Church. It provides further evidence of a lesser known tradition, which abhors violence and the suffering of animals and promotes loving, compassionate relationships with animals. It explores biblical, ecclesial and patristic texts, what at times are combined with new primary research and modern commentary to develop specific points. Several elements, which lie at the heart of animal suffering are explored: All creation knowing, praising and worshipping Christ; Christ Pantocrator and Incarnate God brings an end to the hated practice of animal sacrifice; Image of God and a Christ-like life; Christ extending the Law to the nonhuman creation.

Knowing God: Son and Image As noted, many patristic commentaries refute the various heresies emerging at that time. Against Heresies for example, proves that the Christian God is the Creator of all things and provides proof that the Christian God is in loving relationship with His creation, unlike the God of the Gnostics.1 One question arising here is whether creation was aware of the existence of God. Evidence from numerous biblical, ecclesial and patristic teachings of various sections of ‘the earth’ and at times animals, knowing and praising God, with some texts specifically relating to Christ’s Incarnation, death and Resurrection, appear to provide the answer:

 1

Unlike the God of the Gnostics e.g., Valentinus, see Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism.

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

69

All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.2 The whole creation was altered by Thy Passion: for all things suffered with Thee, knowing, O Word, that Thou holdest all in unity. 3 He who holds all things in unity was lifted on the Cross, and the whole creation wept to see Him hanging naked on the Tree. The sun hid its rays and the stars cast aside their brightness; the earth shook in mighty fear, the sea fled and the rocks were rent.4 Though Thou wast shut within the narrowest of sepulchres, O Jesus, all creation knew Thee as true King of heaven and earth.5

This brings forth further questions. What do we mean by ‘knowing’ God? Is all creation gifting this knowledge or is this exclusively for the human creature? We find evidence of patristic teachings, commentaries and poetry, which confirm creation’s knowledge of Christ. St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius inform us that like the Father, Christ was known to all things in creation: He therefore, who was known...the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God...from the creation itself.6 Now nothing in creation had gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only, Why, neither sun nor moon nor heaven nor stars nor water nor air altered their course; but knowing their Creator and King, the Word, they remained as they were made.7

St. Gregory Nazianzen and St Ephrem speak to the point of worship and praise: All things cry out about you Those, which speak, Those, which cannot think;

 2

Col. 1:16-7. Mother Mary and Met Kallistos, The Lenton Triodion, 625. The authors again reference Col. 1:16-7. 4 Mother Mary and Met Kallistos, 650. 5 Mother Mary and Met Kallistos, 624 6 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7, referring back to 2.2; 2.6.2, “when even dumb animals tremble and yield at the invocation of His name.”; Athanasius, On the Incarnation, S: 45.5. 7 Athanasius, On the Incarnation, S: 43. 3

70

Chapter Three For there is one longing, one yearning, That all things have for you. (Rom. 8:22-23)8 Mercy was kindled on high, at the voice of creation that cried out: Gabriel was sent; he came and gave tidings of Your Conception. When You came to the Birth, Watchers gave tidings of your coming forth.9 In the fourth year, let the whole earth praise Him with us.10 In the twenty-third year, let the ass praise Him, that gave its foal for Him to ride on, that lost the bonds, that opened the mouth of the dumb, that opened also the mouth of the wild asses.11 The creatures complained that they were worshipped; in silence they sought release. The All-Releaser heard, and because He endured it not He came down put on the form of a servant in the womb, came forth, set free Creation. R., Blessed be He Who made his creation his gain!12

Other texts indicate that creation has a voice that cries out to God and has ‘human’ characteristics ranging from fear to joy.13 St. Anastasius of Sinai teaches that not only did creation rejoice, but also that it did so when it learnt of its “transformation from corruption to incorruption.”14 To add further support to this argument, we may look to the corpus of patristic teachings on the sanctification of creation. Theokritoff (2009) informs us that St. Gregory Nazianzen taught that Christ sanctified everything He touched: Christ “sleeps in order to bless sleep” “weeps in order to make tears blessed” 15 and explicitly links Christ’s baptism with the sanctification of the baptismal waters.16 St. Basil of Seleucia taught that

 8

Gregory Nazianzen, Hymn to the God. McGuckin, St. Gregory Nazianzen: Selected Poems, 7; also, “The Beauty of the World.” In Chryssavgis and Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, 41. 9 Ephrem the Syrian, Nineteen Hymns, 14:36. 10 Ephrem the Syrian, 13:8. Compare Hymn II For the Epiphany, which is almost the same. 11 Ephrem the Syrian, Nineteen Hymns, 13:27. 12 Ephrem the Syrian, 14:35, refrain. 13 Andrew of Crete, On the Dormition of Mary, 145-146. 14 Anastasius of Sinai, (1985:163) Joie de la transfiguration: D’après les Pères d’Orient Spiritualité Orientale 39. Coune, D. M. (Ed.) Bégrolles-en-Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, cited in Gschwandtner, Role of Non-Human Creation, 134. 15 Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations, 37.2 On the Words of the Gospel. 16 Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations, 29.10 The Third Theological Oration. On The Son; also, 39.15-16 Theophany On the Holy Lights.

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

71

Christ saved the world and liberated the earth 17 and recounts all the benefits of salvation including “a principle of purification for the world” and a “renewing of nature.” 18 This style of commentary exists until today. Met. Kallistos often retells the following account from Mount Athos: An elder is distracted in his morning prayer by the dawn chorus of frogs from a nearby marsh and sends his disciple to tell them to be quiet until the monks have finished the Midnight Office. When the disciple duly transmits the message, the frogs reply, `We have already said the Midnight Office and are in the middle of Matins; can't you wait till we've finished? 19

One need not travel to Athos to experience something similar, for all have encountered the dawn and dusk chorus of birdsong. Such texts appear to answer the above question by illustrating that all creation has a type of knowledge of God and that He in turn knows each of His created beings.20 We have therefore a tradition originating in the early Church and lasting until today, of all created beings knowing God, calling to God and blessing and praising God. They appear to have the capacity to do so independently of humans and as such speak to arguments relating to an animal’s individual integrity and agency. To deny the possibility of these actions would place limits on God and be akin to the heresies the Fathers fought so hard to refute. Are we to take such texts seriously or are we to regard them as romantic fantasy? McGuckin (2013)21 gives an important insight into this question. Using St. Gregory’s poetic work as illustration, he advises that St. Gregory set out to reconcile one of the great divides of ancient thought namely, “whether poetry was capable of being considered a philosophical art or whether it was hopelessly fictive.” 22 He clarifies why this was necessary, which in turn, relates to the earlier point on the influence of philosophy on the early Fathers. He goes on to state that this “intellectual conflict is not entirely dead even now.” He explains that St. Gregory “posits an

 17

Basil of Seleucia, Third Homily on Pascha, SC.187:209. Basil of Seleucia, SC.187:215. 19 This a frequent story used by Metropolitan Kallistos. Ref: Elder Joseph the Hésychaste, Letter 57 in, Expression of Monastic Experience, 315. Also cited in Theokritoff, “Creation and Salvation in Orthodox Worship.” 20 E.g., Mt 10:29. 21 McGuckin, “The Beauty of the World.” The importance of cultural context should not be underestimated. 22 McGuckin, “The Beauty of the World,” 37. The fact that much of the prophetic material and Psalms in the OT is in poetic form already sets a context for this question. 18

72

Chapter Three

interesting synthesis between the two philosophical positions about poetry” explaining that poiesis does not simply signify poetic art but the “generic concept of creativity, the act of making” and of “inspired perception.”23 He argues that St. Gregory advanced a philosophy, which still has relevance today, which is that we cannot simply catalogue the world taxonomically in order to acquire an accurate understanding. What those who lead us need is a “transcendent appreciation” of creation, which St. Gregory maintains, is achieved in poetry: Insight into reality is gifted in the degree of the perspicacity of the one who sees…a prophetic and priestly charism…as a poetic and spiritual insight into truth.24

We might therefore understand the Fathers’ poetry as inspired by deeper, spiritual realities rather than viewing them necessarily as a literal or metaphorical exposition. If we accept this premise, we may use the Fathers’ poetry as another type of primary source material; not in the sense of canonical law or biblical texts but perhaps as homilies which give us insight into the Fathers’ view of creation as an active participant in doxology and thus to be taken seriously.25 Moving to the concept of knowledge via some form of reciprocal relationship between God and His creation we may begin with St. Athanasius who informs us that “no part of creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere.” 26 This reflects the patristic understanding that all things have their origin in the Logos and therefore ‘all things’ have some type of affinity and unity with their Creator. Gregory of Nyssa indicates that the rest of creation should not be denied the capacity to commune with God: Now, by a provision of the Supreme Mind there is an intermixture of the intellectual with the sensible world, in order that nothing in creation may be thrown aside as worthless, as says the Apostle, or be left without its portion of the Divine fellowship…thus the earthly might be raised up to the

 23

McGuckin, 39. McGuckin, 43. The 28th Oration (The Second Theological Oration) was “one of the most widely read pieces of Christian antiquity” due to its lifting up at Chalcedon as the “definitive Christian teaching on divine transcendence.” CANNPNF 2-07. 25 Harakas identified this possibility, which Theokritoff and Gschwandtner have developed. 26 Athanasius, On the Incarnation, S: 8; also, Against the Heathen, S: 42. 24

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

73

Divine, and so one certain grace of equal value might pervade the whole creation.27

St. Maximus establishes the consistency in patristic teachings on this point: For all things, in that they came to be from God, participate proportionally in God.28 [All things] belong to each other rather than to themselves, in accordance with the unifying relationship between them.29

Participation in God seems to open theological space for acknowledging the possibility of some form of reciprocal relationship with God. St. Maximus brings us closer to the point in his teachings on the logoi: The many logoi are the one Logos to whom all things are related and who exists in himself without confusion, the essential and individually distinctive God, the Logos of God the Father. He is the beginning and cause of all things...he held together in himself the logoi before they came to be...This same Logos, whose goodness is revealed and multiplied in all the things that have their origin in him, with the degree of beauty appropriate to each being, recapitulates all things in himself. 30

Loudovikos speaks directly to the potential of dialogical reciprocity between all created beings and their Creator: This ‘energy’ of God in Christ, by the Spirit, is nothing other than the ‘providential binding together’ of all ‘intelligible and sensible beings’ ‘to God as cause, principle, and end’. God, by drawing all beings into a deep relationship with himself, draws together the multitude of beings, despite their different and divergent natures, to a kat-holic ‘mutual inclination of all things’...God, therefore, leads all created beings, all the ‘particular relationships’ of the distributed natures, into an unmixed adherence, without eliminating their natural otherness. This demonstrates the relation of each to the totality of being, the togetherness and the homofyes (of the same source) of common, created and caused nature in relation to its one and only uncreated and supernatural cause. We could say God shows the consubstantiality of created beings, not by negating the differences of natures, but by constituting this unconfused union in them as a harmonious, integrative ontological ‘identification’ because he is the

 27

Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism, VI. Maximus, Amb. 7.2. In Blowers, On the Cosmic Mystery, 54-55. 29 Maximus, Amb 7, PG 91. 685AB. 30 Blowers, 54-55. 28

74

Chapter Three ‘cause, principle, and end of all the creation and beginning of all things and eternal ground of the circulation of things’.31

Loudovikos also uses the much simpler example of a column graph to explain St. Maximus’s understanding of direct creaturely relationship to God as opposed to the hierarchal relationship generally attributed to St. Dionysios the Areopagite.32 Loudovikos’s use of “intelligible and sensible beings” brings me to my final point on who has knowledge of God. I have already touched upon animal consciousness and the flawed teachings of Aristotle and others who rejected intelligence and rationality in animals and, how these teachings were incorporated into some of the theology of the early Church and remains until today. 33 Whilst acknowledging the differences in understanding of such terms in that earlier period, there are nonetheless clear examples from that period of contemporary understanding and use: Rationality was not, as it came to be understood later, simply a capacity to reason with one’s mind. Instead, as the ancient Greeks thought of logos, it is man’s capacity to achieve the unity of the world and to make a cosmos out of it. Man has the capacity to unite the world.34 The conduct of storks comes very near intelligent reason.35 You may see flocks of vultures following armies and calculating the result of warlike preparations; a calculation very nearly approaching to human reasoning.36 Without doubt terrestrial animals are devoid of reason. At the same time how many affections of the soul each one of them expresses by the voice of nature! They express by cries their joy and sadness, recognition of what

 31

Loudovikos, “Eikon and mimesis,” 127:3. This analogy was part of a lecture at Winchester University in 2016. Perl argues against this traditional interpretation of Dionysius’s use of hierarchy in “Hierarchy and Love in St. Dionysius the Areopagite.” 33 Perl, “Hierarchy and Love,” 23. See Nicolaides, “Science and Orthodox Christianity: An Overview” to support the point; also, Chapter Nine. 34 Met. John, “Proprietor or Priest of Creation?” 35 Basil, Hexaemeron, 8:5. 36 Basil, 8:7. 37 Basil, 7:4. Whilst we cannot be sure of the meaning behind Basil’s use of dumb, he does link dumb with unreasoning and an inability to speak. This is at the core of Aristotelian arguments for irrationality in animals, i.e. if they do not possess language they cannot think. Scientific research proves that numerous species communicate between themselves and to other species. 32

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

75

is familiar to them, the need of food, regret at being separated from their companions, and numberless emotions.38 …avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish.39

It is important to note that the recognition of sentience 40 in certain creatures by St. Basil and others throws into doubt any suggestion that the contemporary debate on animal sentience is either a ‘new’ concept or outside the boundaries of Eastern Orthodox theology. When we examine the scientific evidence available today, it is clear that many species of animals are rational beings with intellect and a conscious knowledge of self. The implications for our theology are obvious.41 Economou and others have suggested that the Church needs to reevaluate its theology in light of our treatment of the environment: All Churches that cooperate in the WCC have to reexamine their teaching and preaching, their worship and their activities in regard to man's relationship to the natural world from the macro-ecological view-point.42

The macro view relates to our relationship with God, which in turn, determines our micro–ecological relationship and use with nature, I use this same argument for teachings concerning the animal beings within that environment. If we are able to re-evaluate our teachings on the environment, it seems reasonable to expect the same re-evaluation of teachings, which relate to the animals within that environment. In summary of the above, I posit that regardless of how we may wish to interpret ‘knowledge of God’, the non-human animal creation appears to have the potential for some form of spiritual, relational and intellectual

 38

Basil, Hexaemeron, 8:1. Here is clear recognition of sentience in animals. Basil, 8:2. Could this type of philosophical argument have added to the rejection of rational souls for non-human animals? St Augustine was a follower of Mani and his rejection of those teachings may have played a role in why his view of the second kingdom has no place for nature. 40 Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or experience subjectively, i.e., the animal is capable of feeling not only pain and distress but also positive and negative emotions; including psychological experiences such as comfort, pleasure or interest that are appropriate to its species, environment and circumstances. 41 See Chapter Nine. 42 Economou, An Orthodox view of the Ecological Crisis, 1.2. 39

76

Chapter Three

understanding of God. If this is the case, there appears to be a need to review teachings, which suggest they do not, for they have undoubtedly contributed to the suffering of animals throughout the ages and continue to do so. If we fail to accept this argument, are we not in danger of abdicating our responsibilities towards creation and condemning animals to more suffering in the future? We are the only creature made in the Image of God and this fact alone is sufficient in and of itself, to secure our place within the created world. There is no need to denigrate the rest of creation or condemn it to a life of suffering because the rest of creation is not. We alone have the power to create other beings and to destroy them; therefore, we ought to be ever mindful of the need to exercise that power in a compassionate and responsible way.

Image: A Christ-Like Life It is important to note that despite the dispensations of animal sacrifice, God would have known that these dispensations alone would not fully redeem the majority of His only sinful creatures. 43 This would require something entirely different. Linked to St. Athanasius’s previous teachings on why dispensations were necessary, he explains the patristic understanding of Christ’s Incarnation: To shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us…He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption…lest the creature should perish.44

However, humanity is not alone in the dispensation of God’s grace for ‘all things’ are included and benefit from Christ’s re-enactment and fulfilment of God’s original plan.45 St. Ephrem teaches that through the dispensation of Christ’s Incarnation, the unwanted practice of animal sacrifice ends: The lamb bleated as it was offered before the First-born. It praised the Lamb, that had come to set free the flocks and the oxen from sacrifices…O

 43

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.17.3. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, S: 8.2. 45 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.21.1; also, Klager, "Retaining and Reclaiming the Divine.” In Jersak and Hardin, Stricken by God, 462 note 158. 44

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

77

Babe, that art older than Noah and younger than Noah, that reconciled all within the ark amid the billows!46

Instead of the violent sacrifice of animals, Christ in a supreme act of loving sacrifice comes willingly into our midst. In so doing Christ not only brings an end to this form of animal suffering He also extends our freedom and releases us from bondage to the Law: Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.47

We see here how the failure of Noah to protect the animals after they were released from the Ark, is overturned by Christ’s Incarnation and recapitulation of “all things.” Grant (2005) 48 informs us that St. Irenaeus’s use of the word recapitulation transposes the literal, grammatical sense into a theology strongly influenced by St. Paul’s contrast between Adam and Christ, i.e., what was lost in the disobedience of Adam was regained in Christ the second Adam.49 The restoration of God’s original plan for creation is achieved through Christ’s obedience. We have therefore identified two important elements of the Image we are to reflect-sacrifice and obedience to God’s will. Pelikan (1971)50 argues that Christ reinforces the inherent goodness of the non-human animal creation first outlined in the Old Testament by Christ’s words, “The Lord has need of them.” He states that this expresses Christ’s readiness to identify himself as the Creator and the Lord of the ass and its foal, confuting those who regarded such humble beasts as unworthy of him. Pelikan also raises another integral element of St. Irenaeus’s doctrine of recapitulation, which again draws us back to the need to reflect the Image of God in our lives. He describes it: as the most profound theological vindication in the second and third centuries of the universal Christian ideal of the imitation of Christ. For

 46

Ephrem the Syrian Hymns on the Nativity, Hymn 5. This teaching also speaks to the Icon of Christ breaking the bonds of animal suffering shown as Fig. 3-4. 47 Heb 9:12. 48 Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, 52. 49 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 173; also, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.18; 3.23.1. 50 Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1, 223.

Chapter Three

78

Irenaeus, the imitation of Christ by the Christian was part of God’s cosmic plan of salvation.51

Met. John speaks to the point: Christ is the one who came in order to do what Adam did not do: to be the priest of creation. Through his death and resurrection, Christ aimed precisely at this unity and communion of the whole of creation with God, at the reference of creation back to God again. It is for this reason that Christ is called the ‘second Adam’, or the ‘last Adam’, and that his work is seen as the ‘recapitulation’ (anakefalaiosis) of all that exists, i.e. of the entire creation. Now it is this role, which Christ performed personally through his cross and resurrection that he assigned to his Church, which is his Body.52

If we as a Church are to take on this mantle, then it is reasonable to expect the leaders of the Church to include the suffering animals into their discussions and considerations. It is also traditional teaching that “God showed himself by the fall as patient, benign and merciful” 53 and that by God’s grace, we retain the freedom and the potential through repentance and a righteous and merciful life, to recover His Likeness via Christ.54 Instead of the violent sacrifice of God’s innocent non-human beings, we are to honour and glorify God by rejecting our fallen nature and attempting to achieve a transfiguration of self via Christ’s model of sacrifice, obedience and compassionate love. In reference to the above teachings that God the Father desires “mercy rather than sacrifice” St. Irenaeus informs us that Christ “exhorted them to the same effect”: But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 55

Having previously established that only the human creature had sinned it seems reasonable to propose that non-human beings are guiltless and thus also worthy of mercy. When we view texts such as these through the lens of animal suffering, we uncover another dimension; one, which speaks not only to the significance for the human creature but also to the

 51

Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1, 144. 52 Met. John, “Proprietor or Priest of Creation?” 53 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.20; 3.18.5. 54 Irenaeus, 3.18.1; 3.20.1-2. 55 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, quoting Mt 12:7, 4.17.4.

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

79

subject of animal suffering and our dietary obligations. One question to ask here is, if Christ’s sacrifice releases animals from their suffering and death, should we as Image, do likewise? If so, do the leaders of the Church have a role to play? Met. John speaks to the point: In view of this [ecological] situation, what does theology have to offer humanity? The first obvious thing is that theology cannot and should not remain silent on issues like this. Christian theology and the Church can hardly be excused for staying silent for such a long time on this matter. Particularly since, and without good reason, they have both been accused of having something to do with the roots of the ecological problem. They, Church and theology, have to speak on this matter not so much in order to apologise and offer explanations in view of such accusations, but in order to offer their constructive contribution to the solution to the problem. For they must have something constructive to say on matters like this, or they risk being unable to live up to their claim to the Truth. A truth, which does not offer life, would be empty of meaning. 56

It would be a misreading of Met. John’s point if we were to interpret his teaching on the “ecological problem” as something that would exclude the animal creation and especially so, when we consider the extensive environmental damage caused by the consumption of animal food products. 57 Met. John’s teaching on holding claim to the Truth and remembering Christ’s teaching in Luke 14:5 that we should act to prevent the suffering of both humans and animals are we ready to question any treatment or use of animals, which is abusive, violent or exploitative? Surely, any such outcomes should concern us, for none such as these reflects the Image or the Likeness of God. Remembering that our distorted Image leads us into distorted beliefs and evil actions, should we not be wary of any suggestion that our present treatment and use of animals is acceptable to God? When we also consider the amount of animal suffering caused by human indifference to their suffering, it would appear that Met. John is correct; the leaders of the Church not only have a role but also a great deal more to say. I submit that the most obvious place to start in addressing the subject of animal suffering is with teachings that promote a Christ-like life. We have already noted the traditional teaching that God is the source of all love and goodness. St. Irenaeus teaches that whilst love is not a

 56

Met. John, “Preserving God’s Creation.” See Chapter Nine for further scientific evidence on this and the role of Church leaders. 57

80

Chapter Three

virtue it is “the fulfilling of the law” and that we as Image are to reflect this love in our lives. St Ephrem’s discourse On Love speaks to the point: Because what gain is there, my children, if someone has everything, but does not have love which saves?...For without it every deed, every action is unclean. Even if someone has attained complete chastity, or fasts, or keeps vigil; whether they pray or give banquets for the poor; even if they think of offering gifts, or first fruits, or offering; whether they build churches, or do anything else, without love all those things will be reckoned as nothing by God. For the Lord is not pleased by them. Listen to the Apostle when he says, ‘If I speak with the tongues of Angels and of humans; if I have prophecy and know all mysteries, and have complete knowledge, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I gain nothing’.58

St. Irenaeus among others, speak to this point when teaching that Christ was virtuous, “without sin”59, “a most holy and merciful Lord”60 who “will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good”61 for God “does not use violent means to obtain what He desires.”62 Such teachings continue until today: Learn the commandments of Christ, when he was abused, He did not return abuse; when He suffered, He did not threaten (1 Pet: 2:23).63

Teachings such as these also indicate that any cruel or abusive acts are devoid of love and are thus the antithesis of the Image we are to reflect. One question arising here is whether it is credible to suggest that we are to exclude violence to the non-human creation from these teachings. Christ’s rejection of all forms of violence adequately answers the question and is a common theme in patristic commentary. Christ is the Archetype of the virtuous man who is: mild and tranquil...He would neither break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax. The mild and peaceful response of His kingdom was indicated likewise...in which the spirit of God does, in the most gentle manner, vivify and increase mankind.64

 58

Ephrem, Three Short Discourse-On Love. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.20.2. 60 Irenaeus, 3.18.6. 61 Irenaeus, 3.21.4. His discussion is on Christ born of a virgin but it speaks to the ‘qualities’ we are to emulate. 62 Irenaeus, 5.1.1. 63 Chryssavgis, the Reflections of Abba Zosimas, 8. 64 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.20.10. 59

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

81

In addition, those who follow Christ by rejecting violence in its various forms will be “exalted by the Lord”: Blessed the one who has become long-suffering and compassionate and not become the slave of the barbarian, I mean anger and evil wrath, for such a one will be exalted by the Lord.65

In light of such teachings, it seems reasonable to state that violence to animals is against God’s will. St. Maximus reiterates these teachings when informing us that Christ is the source of all virtue and warns us that the “immobility of virtue is the beginning of vice.” 66 We find a similar teaching in St. Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on the Sabbath texts where he urges us to stop our sins and: offer God a life holy and worth of admiration as a sacred oblation, steadily advancing to all virtue. This is the spiritual sacrifice well pleasing to God.67

We are therefore to reject violence and develop the virtues through practicing mercy and gentleness to all of God’s creation regardless of the species. The challenge before us is how to accommodate these teachings in the modern world where animals suffer because of our demands for animal-based food, drugs, clothing, sport or entertainment. St. Chrysostom’s teaching on the Sabbath law offers us further useful insight. He teaches that the Sabbath conferred “many and great benefits” which included making humans more humane and gentle in their treatment of others.68 We again see references to types of behavioural guidance and moral discipline in his reference to the training of humanity “by degree to abstain from wickedness” and significantly, that such action is part of our role as Image of God. I do not suggest that St. Chrysostom specifically includes animals in this teaching but neither does he exclude them, for as I have shown, the term ‘household’ would allow for the inclusion of animals. He does however include them in the following teaching:

 65

Ephrem, On the Beatitudes: Fifty-Five Chapters. Maximus, Ad Thalassium, 17. Maximus is referring to Gregory of Nyssa’s “perpetual striving”; also, Amb. 7, 58. 67 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Homily 101. In Just, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament: III Luke, 235-6. This teaching also links to the earlier commentary on Christ extending the law. 68 Chrysostom, Homily 39 on Matthew 12, 3, 1 B#54, 257, 255. In, The Bible and the Fathers for Orthodox, Daily Scripture Readings and Commentary for Orthodox Christians, 753. 66

82

Chapter Three Holy people are most loving and gentle in their dealings with their fellows, and even with the lower animals: for this reason, was it said that ‘A righteous man is merciful to the life of his beast.’69

St. Theophylact of Ochrid & Bulgaria 70 offers further insight into doing good rather than strict obedience to the Sabbath law. St. Ambrose’s echoes these teachings when stating that we should “stretch out our hands in good works” and be “above the Law in virtue.”71 Here again we see the ‘good works’ of healing on the Sabbath linked with the attainment and practice of virtuous behaviour that stems not from rigid obedience to a set of laws, but from true repentance and a contrite heart which brings us closer to the Likeness of God. St. Diadochos elaborates: When it [the Holy Spirit] sees us longing with all our heart for the beauty of the divine likeness…by making one virtue after another come into flower and exalting the beauty of the soul ‘from glory to glory’ (2 Cor. 3:18), it depicts the divine likeness on the soul. 72

Again, similar teachings are given by St. Maximus 73 and St. Peter: Add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful.74

Theodore the Studite affirms these sentiments and links a virtuous life with our role as Image: If inanimate and irrational creatures are made radiant and lovely by the resplendent resurrection, how much more ought we, who have been honoured with reason and the image of God…For one who strives after virtue is truly the sweet fragrance of Christ…[2 Cor. 2, 15-16].75

 69

Chrysostom, On Romans xxix, 59. Theophylact of Ochrid & Bulgaria, The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of The Holy Gospel According to Matthew, 169-170. 71 Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke, 7.186, 311-12. 72 He also states, “Our likeness to God-requires our cooperation.” St. Diadochos of Photiki, On Spiritual Knowledge, 288. 73 Amb 7, 59. 74 2 Peter 1:5-8. 75 Again, we see the negative influence of Greek philosophy. Theodore the Studite, Catechesis 6; also, Catechesis 50. 70

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

83

A common teaching is that animals are especially cooperative with the saints because they recognise this fragrance and Image in the saints’ lives. We are to “Do away with the former covetousness by good works, and follow after Christ.” 76 We are also to acquire “the knowledge of moral discipline” so that we “may always live in a state of gratitude to the Lord.”77 It is important to note St. Irenaeus’s teaching on moral discipline for there appears to be a tendency within both the philosophical and theological communities to reject moral arguments in relation to our treatment and relationships with animals and yet as noted, it seems to be an important, perhaps even essential part of the salvific process.78 Met. Kallistos speaks to the point: All too many people, clergy and laity, think as Christians that this doesn’t matter – that the treatment of animals is not a moral issue. But as soon as you say that animals are part of God’s creation and we humans have a God given responsibility towards the creation, then at once, one sees that it is both a moral and spiritual question. That is why the Ecumenical Patriarch was so right to insist that the misuse of creation is a sin-but all too many people don’t see it that way. 79

Again, we have clarity that the misuse of animals is a sin. This brings us back to the question of what constitutes misuse and the answer remains the same as that outlined in the scales of suffering in Chapter One: anything that results in the unnecessary suffering of the animal. Tradition teaches that Christ is the true Image of God; the source of all love, goodness and virtue and that we are to strive towards achieving that Likeness by following Christ’s loving and compassionate relationship and treatment of ‘all things.’80 It is entirely plausible therefore to assert that any action, which is contrary to this Archetype, is the antithesis of God and His will. Whilst we do not condone the cruelty depicted in the icon of Christ’s crucifixion (Fig. 3-1)81 and view it as ungodly and cruel behaviour towards the innocent and sinless Christ, neither should we condone, nor be

 76

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.32.1. Irenaeus, 3.20.2. For further commentary on moral discipline, see 3.25.1. 78 Although I acknowledge the views by Yannaras expressed earlier. 79 2014 interview, Chapter Six. This question relates to the Cyprus Case Study in Chapter Five. 80 See also Nellas, Deification in Christ: Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, 33. 81 https://jtalexanderiv.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/imitators-of-christ-ismartyrdom-a-sacrament-part-3/ 77

84

Chapter Three

indifferent to ungodly and cruel acts on other innocent and sinless creatures, such as those depicted in Figs. 3-2 and 3-3.

Fig. 3-1 Christ’s Crucifixion

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

Fig. 3-2 “Crucified Dog.” Cyprus

85

86

Chapter Three

Fig. 3.3 Animal Experiment Primate 82

Most of us will recognise the evil in the first two examples but what of the third?83 Those who perpetrated these actions felt justified in doing so. My argument is that these examples, together with those in Chapter One, ought to focus our attention on our distorted Image and of the distorted

 82

This photo is found at: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ld50+test+photos&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CSN Gx1b57JIRIjjxhZNWfz5zZcrahR2AXj1wG5U3zf_1HFTu5FwZ9IWD8AR8B4v6 vDvWaQEy02Ge7QTxQQs23HrB2SyoSCfGFk1Z_1PnNlESOwG8k0IxTmKhIJyt qFHYBePXAR3FyxOVmjtTAqEgkblTfN_18cVOxHnH2TzQ9qkLCoSCbkXBn0 hYPwBEXE9WTQebncIKhIJHwHi_1q8O9ZoRMsf1On_1FDIqEglATLTYZ7tBP BFwjKUX4CbVHyoSCVBCzbcesHZLEbZc9HOYdfZX&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ah UKEwjmaWTrsPaAhVJtRQKHdygDg4Q9C96BAgAEBs&biw=1920&bih=900& dpr=1#imgrc=TU-z4nbOxt1PvM 83 Chapter Nine examines the inherent problems in the animal testing model.

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

87

reality that can accompany it. This in turn, ought to remind us of the need to question any actions or demands that result in animal suffering. It has not been the intention to include all of the available patristic teachings on the Image and Likeness of Christ, on practicing the virtues or controlling the passions but rather, to indicate that these teachings are relevant and useful for discussions on the subject of animal suffering. They are equally useful in our individual and collective journeys towards obtaining the ‘Likeness’ of Christ, who we are told, “loves all things.”84

Extending the Law: Protection and Success For the Fathers, the possibility of sharing in the divine life is realised not only through our participation in the goodness of God and sharing in Christ’s obedience but also in our willingness to sacrifice our fallen nature, with its self-indulgent sinful passions. I have explained at length that in His compassion, God devises a salvific plan for the sinful human creature and part of that plan was the establishment of various laws and dispensations. However, patristic teaching is also clear that Christ not only preached the law but also extended it.85 For example, we are not to hate men but to love our enemies, not to swear falsely, speak evil, nor strike but rather, to turn the cheek and live without violence to our neighbours, “nor to do them any evil.”86 St. Irenaeus teaches that Christ does not cancel the law, only the bondage to it: These things…which were given for bondage, and for a sign to them, He cancelled by the new covenant of liberty. But He has increased and widened those laws.87

In essence, Christ extorts us not only to turn away from evil deeds, but even from sinful words and thoughts.88 Importantly, Christ’s practice was not only to preach but also to act, “to heal those who were suffering, and to keep back sinners from sin.”89 As Image, St. Irenaeus suggests we are to do likewise:

 84

Sakharov, St Silouan the Athonite, 95. E.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.13.1; 4.13.3. 86 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.32:1. 87 Irenaeus, 4.16.5; 4.17.1, is where he begins his discussion on God not requiring sacrifices but “an afflicted heart.” 88 Irenaeus, 2.32:2; 4.16.5. 89 Irenaeus, 3.8.1. He warns, “He that committeth sin is the slave of sin.” Also, 3.9.3, “Everyone shall be holden with the cords of his own sins.” 85

88

Chapter Three We must not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law...He did command–namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them.90

We are also reminded that Christ acted and taught regardless of the power or vested interests91 who tried to prevent Him from doing so and again, we are to do likewise. Calls for action are a common theme in contemporary discussions on environmental problems and global warming, yet we continue to stumble towards the abyss.92 Such teachings have relevance for those involved in trying to change the ‘animal industries’ where vested interests and desires for “evil profits” 93 allow practices which cause immense physical and psychological suffering to animals. Such teachings also have relevance for those who act in order to save and protect animals be they wild, domesticated or used in various ways for food, fur, sport, drug, or product testing. Modern theological commentaries on environmental problems frequently advocate modifying our lifestyles and it would seem logical to extend their arguments to include aspects of animal suffering, such as the need to refrain from animal-based food products; hunting for fun; the wearing of fur and from purchasing products, which derive from or involve the physical and psychological suffering of animals. I have already noted that in the Christian tradition, humanity is favoured by God over the non-human creation. However, it is crucially important to emphasize that this does not mean that God does not love, care or provide for the non-human creation or, that He is indifferent to their suffering: God has foreseen all, He has neglected nothing. His eye, which never sleeps, watches over all. He is present everywhere and gives to each being

 90

Irenaeus, 4.13.1; 4.13.3-4. Irenaeus, 3.5.2, “...according to the doctrine leading to salvation, without hypocrisy or respect of person.”; also, 3.12:7. Peter states, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.” 92 Sherrard, The Rape of Man and Nature; also, Chryssavgis, “A Tribute to Phillip Sherrard.” I discuss this further in Chapter Nine. 93 See Met. Kallistos interview, Chapter Six. 91

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

89

the means of preservation. If God has not left the sea urchin outside His providence, is He without care for you?94

As previously noted there is evidence of an equivalence of care and compassion for both human and non-human beings and Christ’s teachings on the Sabbath law is one such example.95

The Sabbath Law: Matthew and Luke The dominant tradition’s interpretation of Christ’s teachings on the Sabbath focuses on the challenge to Christ’s authority and the hypocrisy and legalism of the Pharisees which renders ‘the Church’ blind to other more spiritual interpretations. I do not question such teachings but advance the idea that there is another theme within the texts, which although less prominent in the minds of the Fathers, is nonetheless, recognized in their commentaries on Christ’s teachings and relate directly to the subject of animal suffering. Patristic commentary is clear that the Sabbath laws never forbade the exercising of mercy, compassion and kindness to any creature in need. This has relevance not only for our discussions on animal suffering and our relationships and treatment of animals but also for the soteriological implications for humanity. Before we examine the texts, it is important to acknowledge the context in which Christ taught. Christ’s teachings are not only set within the framework of ‘doing good’ and virtuous behaviour but also within the wider cultural context in which He lived. Douglas (2001) informs us that anyone raised in a “closed and strongly positional society” would know what constituted moral behaviour and injunctions to be compassionate and kind “would be predicated in the rules of behaviour as well as exemplified in the narratives.” Her comment that such ideas are frequently found in the notion of ‘correctness’ or ‘righteousness’ in Old Testament texts, supports my earlier arguments on ‘behavioural guidance’.96 This affirms Schochet’s (1984) comments that concern for animals was inherent in the Jewish

 94

Basil, Hexaemeron 7: 5. Note the reference to Abraham’s family tribe who followed such practices which relates to the earlier discussion on animal and human sacrifice. 95 E.g. Luke 14:5. See the earlier points on this text in “Notes on Textual Criticism.” 96 Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 44-45.

90

Chapter Three

concept of tza’ar ba’alei hayyim (preventing the pain of animals)97 and Christ incorporates this concept into His teachings on the Sabbath: What man of you, if he has one sheep and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. 98

Stewart and Sykes (1998) suggest that by the time of Melito of Sardis it was an accepted reality that aspects of Jewish tradition were incorporated into the Christian tradition. 99 That Christ uses His knowledge of these traditional Jewish concepts in His teachings and that His audience understand the wider context should not surprise us. Obviously, Christ’s choice of words here as elsewhere is important. He specifically asks “What man of you...will not” rescue the animal from harm and suffering. He indicates the common practice within that society and the type of behaviour He expects from each of us.100 In this text we also have confirmation that in biblical terms the human creature is of more ‘value’ than the non-human animal. That this teaching is important to Christ is evidenced in the fact that He not only refers back to the Old Testament texts which would have been known by his audience 101 but also by His repetition of a very similar teaching in St. Luke which confirms and reinforces St. Matthew’s teaching on this point. Importantly, on this second occasion there is a change of focus from the value of ‘man’ to the ‘equivalence of care’ for both His human and non-human beings. Again, the same language and grammatical structure is used: Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day? 102

Do we think it accidental that Christ includes the human creature alongside the non-human creature in this second teaching? The mentioning of the ‘son’ and the ‘ox’ is neither accidental nor to be ignored It



97 Schochet, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition; also, “The Jewish tradition: the Hebrew Bible and the Rabbis.” In Linzey & Cohn-Sherbok, 30-5; also, Gross, “Jewish Animal Ethics” and in private conversation on the theme; see https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9lgdWiisQ4 for explanation and pronunciation. 98 Mt 12:11-12; 6:26; also, Lk 9:58, 12:6, 13:15 & 14:5. 99 Stewart-Sykes, The Lamb’s High Feast, 20-23. 100 I do not ignore Christ’s comment regarding the greater value but continue to focus on God’s expectation that all humans would act to prevent their suffering. 101 Ex 23:5; Dt 22:4. 102 Lk 14:5.

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

91

illustrates and confirms Christ’s love, compassion and mercy for all of His created beings. In this and the earlier text of Luke 13:15, Christ draws His audience’s attention back to the Old Testament texts 103 which not only laid the foundations of compassionate behaviour towards animals that are expected by God104 but also, as St. Irenaeus was at pains to point out, are examples of Christ’s extension of those concepts. It is important to note that equivalence of care does not indicate a reduction in the value of the human creature or a reduction in God’s care or love for the rest of His creation. It is important to differentiate between the terms ‘care’ and ‘value’. I am suggesting that God loves and cares for all of His creation whilst acknowledging that biblical and patristic teachings clearly indicate that God gives greater ‘value’ to humans.105 Importantly, Christ outlines a framework of compassion for all of His creatures in need of help, which stands at odds with any teaching that offers a purely anthropocentric and utilitarian reading of protecting a possession or asset, not least because some of these teaching relate to animals who are owned by one’s enemies. The Image evoked by Christ of His distressed and suffering creatures goes well beyond that utilitarian interpretation. This brings us to another point. In Sakharov’s (1991) biography of St. Silouan, we find the following statement: “In the whole of the New Testament there is not a single instance of the Lord paying attention to animals.” 106 I respectfully submit that this teaching is not supported by biblical or patristic evidence. This is important for Hamalis informs us that this work has been translated into twenty languages. The potential damage of some of St. Silouan’s negative teachings on relationships with animals should therefore not be underestimated. I have already presented specific texts on God’s love, care, compassion, mercy and justice to ‘all things’ and at times non-human animals are specifically mentioned. To support the point, I provide patristic commentary on Christ’s teachings on the Sabbath. I begin with St. Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on Luke 14:5, which specifically refer to Christ’s compassion and mercy to both His human and non-human animal creation:

 103

Ps 35: 7; also, Ps 145:9, 36; Ex 23:4, 5, 12; Dt 5:13-4, 22:1 – 4. We may view these O. T. texts as foreshadowing the N. T. texts. 105 E.g. Mt 12:12. 106 Sakharov, St Silouan, 95-6, 470. Hamalis, “The Theological-Ethical Contributions of Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) to Environmental Issues,” 121-130. 104

92

Chapter Three Christ refutes their unrelenting shamelessness by the convincing arguments that he uses. “Whose son of you” he says, “or whose ox shall fall into a pit, and he will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath day.” If the law forbids showing mercy on the Sabbath, why do you take compassion on that which has fallen into the pit...The God of all does not cease to be kind.107

St. Cyril acknowledges Christ’s unending kindness, His “convincing arguments” and His expectation of compassionate and merciful treatment of animals, which in this case is through the immediate rescuing of animals from a pit in order to prevent their further suffering. St. Theophylact of Ochrid and Bulgaria offers a similar teaching when recognizing God’s compassionate equivalence of care and the extension of His mercy to animals: If the law prohibits showing mercy on the Sabbath, why do you help your child when he falls into danger on the Sabbath? But why mention your child? You do not even ignore your ox when you see it in danger on the Sabbath.108

We might also argue that animals are included in his comments on actions, which benefit ‘others’. This again has relevance for discussions on who is included in the concept of neighbour. 109 St. Irenaeus also recognizes that Christ’s teachings have relevance for non-human animals: Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath-days loose his ox or his ass and lead him away to watering…It is clear therefore, that He loosed and vivified those who believed in Him...For the law did not prohibit men from being healed upon the Sabbaths; it even circumcised them upon that day and gave command that the offices should be performed by the priests for the people; yea, it did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. 110

St. Ambrose affirms these teachings when specifically referring to the loosening of the bonds from humans and animals and importantly,

 107

Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 101, 236. Theophylact, The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of The Holy Gospel According to Matthew, 178; also, Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke, Homily 96, for comments on hypocrisy. 109 I discuss this in Chapters Eight and Nine. 110 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.7:2. Initially Irenaeus refers to Luke 13:15. I cannot state that Irenaeus includes animals in “those who believed in Him” although I remind the reader that Irenaeus and others are clear that all creation ‘know’ their creator. 108

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

93

confirms my submission of the foreshadowing of these teachings in the Old Testament: How sweet is the parable and easy the explanation. He pairs a bond with a bond, so that the Jews’ accusation is refuted by their own act. For although they themselves loose the bonds from their animals on the Sabbath [cf. Deuteronomy 5:14], they rebuke the Lord Who set men free from the bonds of sin. 111

St. Ephrem not only teaches that God extends care to “the beasts” but also how freedom in Christ extends to all created beings: Let the seventh day hallow the Holy One-Who hallows the Sabbath and gave rest to all that live-The Blessed One Who wearied not-has care for mankind and has care for the beasts. When Freedom fell under the yokeHe came to the Birth and became bond to make it free.112

This indicates that in addition to Christ’s care for the ‘beasts’, Christ releases ‘all things’ from their bondage. Thus, Christ’s relationship with His creatures is not one of subjugation and domination, such as that found in the enslaved animals of Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, but rather, one based upon willing obedience and trust in a loving, compassionate and merciful God. I believe I have provided the evidence to refute the teaching that Christ does not pay attention to animals, or indeed, their suffering. A further point to make here is that as Christ concerns Himself with the prevention of animal suffering on the Sabbath, it would seem reasonable to propose that He expects the same concern and compassionate treatment for His non-human beings during the rest of the week. As a result, it seems equally reasonable to suggest that God’s expectation and the patristic focus in these teachings, is that we as Image should not only provide animals with food and water but act, and act immediately, in order to prevent their harm or suffering. Such teachings, challenge those who believe it is their God given right to restrict the freedom of animals, be that by confining animals in tiny cages for “evil profit” for food, fur, ‘sport’ and ‘entertainment’ or to test chemicals, drugs or experimental procedures on animals when alternatives are available.

 111

Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke, 7: 175, 307; also, note Cyril of Jerusalem’s point on stewardship, Catechetical Homilies, Homily 15:26; also, Mt 5:16. 112 St. Ephrem, Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity. Hymn 19: 10.

94

Chapter Three

Icon: “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering” I end this discussion with a brief section on a new Icon representing Christ’s concern for animal suffering. It is because of the biblical and patristic teachings above that led me to instigate discussions with one of the United Kingdom’s most experienced iconographers. 113 Our collaboration on this theme has led to the creation of a beautiful triptych entitled “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering.” I also asked Aidan if he would write a small article explaining the meaning behind some of the symbols in the Icon.114 Here is a brief extract from that article: The icon suggests Paradise by the inclusion of trees, sea, grass, bees, birds, fish, snake and lizard, all of which look healthy. These creatures, and Saints Irenaeus and Isaac, face Christ, acknowledging Him as their Creator and Sustainer. One of the bee’s flies towards Him. This attitude of praise lies at the heart of Edenic life, just as ingratitude lies at the heart of the hellish life...This triptych shows Christ in the midst of creation, like a second Adam in paradise. He blesses with it His right hand and directs it with His left. He is a prophet, priest and king of creation.

In our discussions, I expressed the desire for the icon to depict different aspects of animal suffering in the contemporary world whilst ensuring that it was grounded in both Eastern Orthodox theology and in the biblical and patristic teachings of Luke 13:15 and 14:5.115 I gave him some ideas on how Christ might be depicted surrounded by a variety of animals, some emaciated, exiting cages with broken doors, whilst other might be shown with broken chains thus symbolizing the breaking of the bonds of death and power of Satan.

 113

Aidan Hart. The full article is available on the panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org website. 115 These texts are drawn either side of Christ in the centre panel. 114

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

95

Fig. 3-4 Triptych “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering.”

Aidan beautifully captures this brief in the center panel and explains that the icon: ...shows Christ blessing and liberating them, the tiger and chicken from their cages and the dog from its chains. Christ has come to set not just humanity free, but all creation. 116 Cruelty to animals not only causes physical suffering to the victims but also introduces a tragic dissonance to this cosmic hymn. Such behaviour is therefore a sin not only against the animals, for it is also a failure of us humans to be conductors of the Eucharistic choir.

Aidan also explains that the image doubles as an image of Christ’s second coming:117 Rome is home to numerous apse mosaics dating from the first millennium. Some of them show Christ in the midst of brightly coloured clouds. Examples are found in the churches of Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, Santi Cosma e Damiano, Santa Constanza, Santa Prassede, and Santa Maria

 116 117

Rom 8:19-23. By the use of coloured ‘sunrise’ clouds in the background.

96

Chapter Three Trastevere. What do these clouds represent? They are clouds of a sunrise, and thus indicate Christ’s Second Coming in glory: …then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory… (Matthew 24:30)

Most of these apses also bear a cross at the apex. This is the “sign of the Son of Man” that will appear in the skies at Christ’s coming, a sign traditionally understood by the Orthodox Church to be the cross. The stars that surround our cross in the triptych represent the host of heavenly angels that will accompany Him. On either side of Christ are St. Irenaeus of Lyon and St. Isaac the Syrian who are shown holding scrolls of texts, which refer to two important teachings for this theme. On the left panel is a St Irenaeus text, which reminds us, should we forget: “Now, among the "all things" our world must be embraced”118 and on the right is St. Isaac with his teaching that “Oppression is eradicated by compassion and renunciation.”119 Both teachings arise from their desire to reflect the Image of God and are apposite for our discussions on how to reduce the suffering of ‘all things’ in God’s creation.

 118 119

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:2:5. Isaac the Syrian, Mystic Treaties, Ch. 1.

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

Fig. 3-5 Centre panel from “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering.”

97

98

Chapter Three

Chapter Three Summary I present biblical texts and patristic commentary, which confirm that the divine care and compassion to animals outlined in the Old Testament are reflected through Christ in the New. I state that Noah’s failure to protect the creatures after they were released from the Ark is rectified by Christ’s recapitulation of “all things” in His Incarnation. I present further evidence that animals know and recognize Christ and that the “whole world” is sanctified through Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. It seems entirely possible therefore, to advance the idea that “all things” including the irrational animals and brute beasts of history, will be saved at the Eschaton. I show how Christ willingly becomes the dispensation of love, “the pure sacrifice” in place of the forced and violent non-human sacrifice so clearly despised by God. I provide evidence that we are to honour and glorify God by living without violence whilst striving to attain the true and undistorted Image of Christ. We are to be “mild and tranquil” whilst developing repentant hearts through prayer, practising the virtues and controlling our unrighteous passions. The Fathers teach that Christ not only fulfils the law but also extends it. In addition to the traditional focus on Christ’s teachings on the Sabbath, the Fathers recognise that these texts also contained teachings on the need for compassionate care, protection and mercy for animals. I present evidence that Christ stood against the vested interests in His time on earth, regardless of the cost to Himself. St. Irenaeus exhorts us to act after Christ’s example and I suggest this gives us the authority to act and to stand against the vested interests of our time, who by their desire for “evil profit” or passions, indulge in or allow cruel and abusive practices to humans and animals. We are at all times to act without violence. I argue that it would be incongruous to suggest that our all-loving and compassionate God, who remembers the animals and hears their praise, would be indifferent to their calls to be freed from abuse, exploitation and suffering. I further support this argument by offering Christ’s teachings on ‘doing good’ on the Sabbath where He revealed his expectation that each one of us should act to prevent the suffering of both human and nonhuman beings. As a result, this opens theological space for further development in our understanding of other biblical texts, which may have relevance for this theme. By changing our focus and examining the texts through the lens of animal suffering we reveal Christ’s loving relationship, care and protection for His non-human animal beings. He asks each of us directly, Who among you will not act to relieve their suffering? I submit

Ancient Voices: The New Testament

99

that we ought to consider our treatment of animals in light of His question. An Icon entitled “Christ breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering” reflects these teachings. We may add to the above texts and commentaries, a further set of primary source material, which supports my argument that we as Image should be concerned to relieve the suffering of animals. Whilst biblical and patristic teachings recognize both our fallen nature and the continuing evil in the heart of man, Eastern Orthodox tradition also acknowledges that this does not prevent us from striving to attain or indeed attaining, a pre-lapsarian existence in our present time. The saints are exemplars of this possibility and it is to these that I now turn.

CHAPTER FOUR SAINTS AND SINNERS

Overview The contemporary Eastern Orthodox debate on the environment developed through reflections on the role of humans as Image of God. This debate has emphasized human sovereignty in terms of benevolent stewardship and management of creation. Many agree that despite the icon metaphor the trail of abuse to creation came as a result not only of the influence of Hellenistic culture and philosophy on Christian theology1 but also through the misinterpretation of dominion as domination. Numerous examples of loving, compassionate and friendly relationships with animals are evident in the hagiographies of the saints who are championed as a corrective to this damaging worldview. They offer a glimpse of a prelapsarian existence and thus act as important guides for our deliberations concerning our duties and relationships with animals. Conversely, there are individuals who abuse their freedom and cause harm to animals in order to fulfil their desire for profit and/or the indulgence of their passions. Such harmful actions result not only in the immense suffering of animals and their environments but also in negative soteriological consequences for the humans involved.

The Saints As noted, Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the misinterpretation of dominion and the resulting treatment of the created world as mere utilities or commodities. Economou (1990) speaks to the point:



1 This develops through the Western Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas, the Protestant Reformation/Enlightenment and the philosophical interpretations of Descartes, Bacon and Kant. The enslavement of animals due to their lack of language, is evident in Prometheus Bound 477-99, see Aeschylus, in Harden 2013:18.

Saints and Sinners

101

The problem embraces the whole question of man's place on earth and in the universe; it is a holistic and global problem provocated by man's selfproclaimed, absolute and autonomic domination of the Earth. 2

In their discussions on the environment, Eastern Orthodox theologians and scholars suggest that the early Fathers provide an alternative and more compassionate and inclusive lineage.3 Whilst I obviously agree with their analysis, as we have noted, this does not mean that the East was not influenced by these Western attitudes.4 Regardless of the route taken, this historical focus and misinterpretation has significantly contributed to our present crises not only of global warming and climate change but also to the immense suffering in the animal creation; yet discussions on animal suffering are rare. Met. Kallistos speaks to the point: This theology of creation that the Orthodox Church is deeply committed to-the deepness and beauty of creation-has as a direct consequence, reverence for the animals. Why we haven’t so far made the connection, I am not really sure but it is high time we did so.5

This work attempts to address this gap in the theological debate.

A Christ-Like Love Rather than domination, Eastern Orthodoxy looks to the example of Christ Who serves His creation by offering love and compassion to ‘all things’: But Jesus called them to Him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”6

 2

Economou, “An Orthodox View of the Ecological Crisis.” Prologue; also, Met. Kallistos interview Chapter Six. 3 E. g., Dimitrios 1, “Message on Environmental Protection Day; also, “Orthodoxy and the Ecological Crisis”; Bartholomew, “Caretaker of the Environment.” Murray; “The Ephremic tradition and the theology of the Environment.” 4 See also the article on the Western influence on Eastern Christianity by Nicolaidis, et al. 5 2014 interview, Chapter Six. 6 Mt 20:25-28.

102

Chapter Four

This Image has love and service at its core, rather than domination and exploitation. The saints reflect this Image through their selfless devotion to God and love for ‘all things’ in creation. This is evident both within Orthodoxy and in the wider non-Orthodox academic communities such as those dealing with animal ethics. 7 Many saints have close and compassionate relationships with animals and the key to understanding this relationship is that the animals recognise the Image of Christ and thus His authority within these individuals. The quote from St. Matthew above clearly rejects the ‘domination’ interpretation of authority and replaces it with that of a loving and compassionate servant, after the authority of Christ, which again links us back to earlier discussions on reflecting God’s Image in our lives. A further point is that whilst there is authority through love, there is also mutual benefit; whilst the animals are willing to work or provide for the saints, they in turn frequently provide protection and compassionate care for the animals. In this way, we see the restoration of the true Image, which results in a pre-lapsarian paradise where humans and animals live in peaceful harmony. George (1990) speaks to this inclusion and harmony when contrasting the aforementioned historic separationist ethos with the ascetic life and concept of monastic hospitality, Philoxenia. This, he informs us, became “one of the chief marks of a true monk” or monastic community8: God’s mercy and love that penetrate creation through the saint’s empathetic understanding and the loving, reconciling embrace of the stranger...a new community where there is no alienation between humans and humans or between humans and the rest of creation arises.9

Note the qualification here in the term ‘true’ monk, though he does not expand this thought. Monks and saints not only extend their hospitality they also extend their friendship to animals: Monastic history is full of stories of true hospitality, which was extended not only to human beings but also to beasts and birds as well. We have living examples of saints in our time who are friendly and hospitable...to wandering dogs and stray cats and all that is created by God. Here hospitality assumes cosmic dimensions. The true saint receives the whole

 7

Christian academics such as Prof. Rev. Andrew Linzey and Prof. David Clough. George, “Toward a Eucharistic Ecology,” 49. 9 George, 49-50. 8

Saints and Sinners

103

creation as one’s own household. Nothing is really alien or hostile to one in God’s creation. 10

There are two points to highlight here. Firstly, we see another example of animals being included into the concept of household, which supports the aforementioned teachings from Theophylact and others. Secondly, we again see the qualification of ‘true’, this time in reference to the saint. One might conclude that George’s use of ‘true’ indicates a high level of attainment of the Image in the lives of the monks or saints, which manifests in their love, friendship and treatment of all things. This would also be in accordance with both traditional11 and contemporary Eastern Orthodox teaching: What power is contained in the words of the saints! Truly, whatever they said, they spoke out of experience and truth, as the sacred Antony also says, Their words were powerful because they spoke of what they practised; as one of the sages put it, May your life confirm you words!12 In contrast, we can look to the luminous examples of the saints, who respected life and humanity, who befriended the animals and the birds, who positively influenced their environment and community and who lived with simplicity and self-sufficiency.13

Once again, the portrayal of friendship with animals is entirely positive. This is explained by St Catherine of Siena’s teaching on love: The reason why God’s servants love [God’s] creatures so deeply is that they realize how deeply Christ loves them. And it is the very character of love to love what is loved by those we love.14

Similar teachings on reflecting God’s love is evident in numerous patristic texts: Anyone who loves God loves not only his fellow man, but the entire creation as well: trees, grass, flowers. He loves everything with the same love 15



10 George, 19. Contrast this with St. Silouan’s negative comments on friendship with animals. 11 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies, Homily 9:2, 5-16. 12 Chryssavgis, The Reflections of Abba Zosimas, 28. 13 Bartholomew, “Saints and the World.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 381. 14 Catherine of Siena. In Linzey, Animal Rites, 140. See also Linzey’s reference to St Ambrose and Cardinal Heenan, 152.

104

Chapter Four

St. Gregory Palamas teaches, “God and His saints share the same glory and splendour.” H. A. H. Bartholomew interprets this as offering an example of unconditional love where theology and action coincide 16 and a moral and spiritual pathway is formed which allows us: to embrace the whole of creation, to love it as we love our own. 17

All teachings, which give us the authority to extend our love and friendship to non-human beings, are crucial for discussions on the subject of animal suffering. If we are to love the ‘whole creation’ it seems reasonable to suggest that we should be wary of decisions which involve restricting our love, care and concern only to those animals that appeal to us. 18 This is undoubtedly a challenge but one supported by patristic commentary such as this by St. Ephrem who teaches that in loving all things as Christ loves us, we are able to reflect the true Image of God: Living the life of Christ, purifies our hearts and we shine out with goodness and mercy the image of God, evil has no place in us.19

Numerous examples of loving, compassionate and friendly relationships with animals is evident in many hagiographies such as St. Makar of Optino who: was full of pity for animals. In winter, he cared for the birds every day; he would spread out hemp seeds for them, on a little shelf he had attached outside his window. A flock of little titmice, linettes and woodpeckers used to enjoy the Staretz’s favours. He used to watch that the bigger birds, like the jays, did not hurt the little ones. Since the jays tried to devour all the food meant for the other birds, he would put out grain in a little glass trough where the little titmice could easily get it. 20

Vivian (2003) informs us of St. Macarius’s compassion and love, which creates a pre-lapsarian peaceable kingdom, of his healing of a

 15

Ioannikios, An Athonite Gerontikon, 31; also, Vasileios, “Reminiscences of Iviron Skete.” 16 Bartholomew, “Environmental Ethics.” In Chryssavgis & Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, 281-5. 17 Met. John, “Man as Priest of Creation: Insights from Metropolitan Anthony’s Thought.” Conference notes, 2014. 18 Met. Kallistos reiterates this teaching in Chapter Six. 19 St. Ephrem, Sermon in Heptasyllablics. 20 Arseniev, Russian Piety, 138.

Saints and Sinners

105

hyena’s young by making the sign of the cross and of his instructions to her not to harm other creatures and eat only carrion: Macarius, through God’s enlightenment and grace, [enacts] the peaceable kingdom, where he lives in peace with antelopes, hyenas, sheep-and even snakes. The chief virtue of this kingdom, it appears, is compassion: not dogma, not orthodoxy, not orthopraxis, but love and empathy and mercy for others, even non-human others. 21

Such statements do not advocate separation or detachment from animals but reiterate the earlier tradition of inclusion and harmony of “all things” as we participate in and reflect God’s love. Importantly, this early example identifies cruelty to animals as a sin requiring repentance: St. Savas the Sanctified was sent a monk who had been expelled from his monastery because he had struck a mule in the face and killed it. The monk was sent to St Savas to be guided to repentance. 22

Again, we see the sin of violence to animals having soteriological implications for humanity. Many other tales and ballads inform us of the saints’ specific activities in animal care, rescue and protection, some of whom, when the occasion arose, protected animals against hunters. Lang (1956)23 informs us of the story of St. David of Garesja and the partridge who had taken refuge at his feet whilst he prayed. The saint informs the hunter that as the partridge had sought refuge with him he, like his God, would protect it from harm. This angers the hunter who strikes out at the saint only for the hunter’s arm to wither.24 Here not only compassion is evident but also great courage as the unarmed saint stands against the hunter and stands fast even when the hunter threatened to kill him. The reason he offers is that as God provides and protects all of His creation, then he as Image striving towards Likeness, will do likewise. This is not a lone example. Farwell Brown (1900) 25 presents a similar story of St. Giles and the deer. Again, we see the Christian actions of a saint who “loved not men who hunt to kill” and was willing to give his life to save “his friend” the deer, contrasted against the pagans and their hunting. Like the previous example, the display of fear and stress of the deer in this tale foreshadows

 21

Vivian, “The Peaceable Kingdom,” 79-80. Life of Sabas 44. In Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation 132, 122, 130 & 135. 23 Lang, 'St. David of Garesja,' Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints, 89 24 Contemporary scientific research links violence to animals with interpersonal violence. See Linzey, The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence, for numerous studies. 25 Farwell Brown, The Book of Saints and Friendly Beasts, 11. 22

106

Chapter Four

contemporary scientific research confirming these emotions in hunted animals. Similar examples are evident in various countries, for example St. Melangell, the Welsh Patron Saint of animals, convinced the Prince of Powys that hunting with hounds was wrong and resulted in the Prince turning his lands into an animal sanctuary. 26 Whilst some may argue that such tales are simply myths,27 I submit that we may use a similar argument for the hagiographies of the saints, to that used by McGuckin in his discussion on the spiritual significance of patristic poetry. Another point I wish to make here is that the authors of these hagiographies such as St. Athanasius, made the conscious decision to write about the saints’ friendships with animals and did so in an entirely positive way. A further point is that if we are to abide by the Eastern Orthodox theology outlined by the authors of these hagiographies, should we not be cautious of any teachings that we should reject their knowledge of the saints’ compassionate and friendly relationships with animals, such as those found in the Sophrony text? 28 Despite St. Silouan’s negative teaching on friendship with animals, (though I have explained why I believe he makes his comments), he is also clear that his occasions of cruelty to animals caused him great distress: Once I needlessly killed a fly. The poor thing crawled on the ground, hurt and mangled, and for three whole days I wept over my cruelty to a living creature, and to this day, the incident remains in my memory. Somehow it happened that some bats on the balcony of the storeroom where I was, and I poured boiling water over them, and once again I shed many tears on this incident, and since then I have never harmed any living creature. One day…I saw a dead snake on my path, which had been chopped into pieces, each piece writhed convulsively and I was filled with pity for every living

 26

See http://animal-interfaith-alliance.com/news/page/6/. Her Church remained a place of sanctuary throughout the Middle Ages and the Parish continues to protect hares. The conservation society Cymdeithas Melangell now promotes animal welfare. 27 Would we think them fanciful or myth if the stories recorded relationships between the saints and cats or dogs, rather than lions or crocodiles? 28 St. Silouan, 95-6. Silouan statements are ambiguous for on the one hand he states that “to become attached, to love, caress and talk to them [animals]-that is folly for the soul,” 470, yet he also states that the Holy Spirit teaches that “the soul should love every living thing,” 469. I believe this ambiguity lies in the fact that he is teaching his disciples, all of whom are studying to be monks. Fr. Sophrony notes that his book “is destined for a very narrow circle of people whose interest is concentrated on Christian asceticism” and written accordingly, 4. His book is widely translated and if taken out of context, this will undoubtedly cause distress to many. His comments have been described as “scandalous’, see Hamalis.

Saints and Sinners

107

creature, ever suffering thing in creation, and I wept bitterly before God. The Spirit of God teaches the soul to love every living thing so that she would have no harm come to even a green leaf on a tree, or trample underfoot a flower of the field. Thus, the Spirit of God teaches love towards all, and the soul feels compassion for every being, loves even her enemies and pities even devils because they have fallen away from the good.29

Here we see the echoes of St Isaac. Clearly, on the occasions of his “cruelty,” the saint fails to reflect the Image he so assuredly desires and in recognising that fact, he suffers. In his cruelty to animals, this saint recognises his failure. He recognises his actions were sinful and through this recognition, he achieves a higher level of spiritual and moral conduct, for he makes a vow not to harm any other living creature. When he later sees the writhing, suffering snake, he is filled with pity for all those suffering and “wept bitterly before God.” This is not emotional sentimentalism; this is searing spiritual clarity of the continual evil in the minds of the fallen sinful creature and this recognition, brings forth its own pain and suffering. 30 Through the suffering creature, we see the suffering, fallen ‘man’. This should encourage us all, for in our recognition of our failed attempts to attain the Image and Likeness of God we must try to find a deeper meaning for our actions and use that reflection to move forwards in our endeavours to live a cruelty-free life. H. A. H. Bartholomew affirms the point on spiritual acuity when teaching on the emotional and spiritual connection between the saints and animals: The Desert Fathers knew that a person with a pure heart was able to sense the connection with the rest of creation and especially with the animal world...This connection is not merely emotional; it is profoundly spiritual in its motive and context. It gives a sense of continuity and community with all of creation while providing an expression of identity and compassion with it-recognition that…all things were created in Christ and in Christ all things hold together. (Col. 1:15-17)31 Thus, love for God, love for human beings, and love for animals cannot be separated sharply. There may be a hierarchy of priority, but it is not a sharp distinction of comparison.32

 29

Sakharov, St Silouan, 469. Gn 8:21 evidences God’s recognition of the continuing evil in humans after Noah sacrifices the animals God had instructed him to save. 31 Bartholomew, “The Wonder of Creation: Religion and Ecology,” 106. 32 Bartholomew, 107. 30

108

Chapter Four

Such teachings are crucial for the animal suffering theme as they allow Eastern Orthodox theologians to break away from the unfortunate but all too common negative views of relationships with animals, such as those expressed in the Sophrony text. Bishop Isaias speaks to this point: I think it is important to say that we understand the people who try to stop the cruelty to the animals do not idolize them but instead, they see that connection that many others do not see. We have to be kind to all creatures. Kindness should show no discrimination...We need to be kind to animals because it is who we are. We are made in the Image of God and we must reflect the love of God in His kindness to all things and because they belong to God. We have a conscience given to us by love, initiated by God who is love and we must use it to love all things.33

This positive traditional theological approach of loving, compassionate relationships with animals is also evident in icons. We have seen the icon of “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering” which depicts Christ together with St. Irenaeus and St. Isaac in the previous chapter. The following Icons are of a further four Eastern Orthodox saints who are particularly associated with animals. In Fig. 4-1, St. Gerasimus pulls a thorn from a lion’s paw, whilst Christ looks down in approval; indicating not only compassion and mercy to animals but also that action is required to prevent their suffering. 34 Fig. 4-2 depicts St. Modestos who was known as a healer of animals. He incorporates into his prayer, a reference to Prov. 12:10 when asking God for pity and mercy to animals. 35

 33

Chapter Seven. Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Icons+of+St.+Gerasimos+and+the+Lion. St. Jerome is a mistranslation of Gerasimus. 35 St Modestos is the patron saint of farm animals in Greece. Image available from: https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=ijGqWsqoE8nAgAbA3r_4Dw&q=Icons+of+ St.+Modestos&oq=Icons+of+St.+Modestos&gs_l=psyab.3..33i22i29i30k1.405717 .410557.0.418036.33.21.0.0.0.0.241.2085.16j3j2.21.0....0...1.1.64.psyab..20.11.1099...0j35i39k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.ePiVGZSwDDY. 34

Saints and Sinners

Fig. 4-1 St Gerasimos.

Fig. 4-3 St. Mamas

109

Fig. 4-2 St Modestos

Fig. 4-4 St. Seraphim of Sarov

Fig. 4-3 is St Mamas, known as a friend of the animals. He exemplifies how animals and humans can be of benefit to each other in peaceful ways. 36 Fig. 4-4 is St Seraphim who shared his solitary life in the woods with bears, wolves, foxes etc, seeking neither to tame nor constrain them but feeding them when they came to him.37

 36

St. Mamas was arrested for converting pagans. He was saved from drowning by an angel, who took him to a mountain in the wilderness where Mamas built a Church, prayed and fasted. He lived in peace with wild animals, drank the milk of wild goats and deer and made cheese, which he gave away to the poor. When soldiers came for him, a lion accompanied him. 37 Dobbie-Bateman, A. F., and Ramakrishn-Ananda, The Spiritual Instructions of Saint Seraphim of Sarov: A Spirit-Baptizer in the Eastern Christian Tradition.

110

Chapter Four

Met. Kallistos speaks to the theme of saints and their compassionate care for animals: Such is in truth the compassionate love that we are called to express towards the animals. All too often they are innocent sufferers, and we should view this undeserved suffering with compunction and sympathy. What harm have they done to us, that we should inflict pain and distress upon them? As living beings, sensitive and easily hurt, they are to be viewed as a 'Thou', not an 'It', to use Martin Buber's terminology: not as objects to be exploited and manipulated but as subjects, capable of joy and sorrow, of happiness and affliction. They are to be approached with gentleness and tenderness; and, more than that, with respect and reverence, for they are precious in God's sight. 38

In contrast to such examples, Theokritoff informs us of the Ethiopian anchorite, Yafkerena-Egzie, known for his monumental asceticism, who failed to achieve perfection due to his hiding some grain from birds.39 This not only indicates the need to reflect God’s providential care to all creatures it also illustrates the Eastern Orthodox teaching that one does not achieve salvation by extremes in religiosity.

Prayers for Animals Met. Kallistos teaches that the saints use of prayers for animals “shows compassion for animals and their suffering” which again supports the argument that compassion and concern for animal suffering is not new.40 The first example is by St. Modestos, who recognises the goodness of all God’s creatures and specifically asks for compassion and the release from suffering for animals: St. Modestos’s Prayer for Animals Lord Jesus Christ my God, Who are merciful and All-good, Who in wisdom created every visible and invisible creature, Who pours out His compassions upon all that He created, Who through Your all-good Providence foresees and troubles over for all Your creatures: bodiless,



Dawn Horse Press, 2000. Saint Seraphim feeding a bear outside of his hermitage and taken from a lithograph in The Way to Sarov, 1903. Image at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seraphim_of_Sarov&oldid=832513149. 38 Met. Kallistos (Ware), Compassion for Animals in the Orthodox Church, (forthcoming 2018). Used with permission. 39 Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of Truth. 40 See our 2014 interview in Chapter Six.

Saints and Sinners

111

physical, rational, irrational, soul-bearing, soulless, from the first to the last. For nothing is not foreseen by You, neither is anything abandoned by You, the Creator and Foreseer of all. For You are He Who opens His hand and fills all living things with goodness. You are He Who makes grass to grow for the cattle, and green herb for the service of men. You are He Who once, through the herd of Israel, preserved them from above from the fatal wound of the first-born of the Egyptians. You are He Who, through the compassion of Your Incarnation, deposed he who had the might of death: that is, the devil, and by Your death, You put death to death. You are He Who, through myself, Your unworthy servant, puts to death the serpent, that Your spring of water might not be corrupted. Those that drink from it, both the living and the dead, through Your life-giving power, You resurrect. And if a demon draws near to it, and prepares to make itself apparent, seize it, that it might never dare to approach the place in which, I the sinner, call upon Your name. To You, therefore, I pray, O All-good Master and Creator of all, and I entreat You, the cause of all life, hearken to this my entreaty, and drive away every fatal sickness and danger from the oxen, horses, donkeys, mules, sheep, goats, bees, and any other animals in true need to the life of Your servants who call upon You, the giver of every good, and of my name. And grant, O Lord, to all those who celebrate my name, and with faith hasten to my relics, permanent peace, multiplication of animals, uncorrupted wheat, wine and oil, and above all, remission of sins, health of bodies, and eternal salvation of souls. Yes, O Lord Jesus Christ, for the descendants from Your very loins, grant compassion on the suffering animals, whose herd is being afflicted by the sickle of death. And not having any word besides bleating and bitter and random noises, in Your mercy, take away their passion and suffering. For if You even call rational beings to this sympathy: “A righteous man has compassion upon his animals,” as is written, how much more do You show compassion on these, Who are their Creator and Foreseer? For You, O compassionate, preserved the animals in the Ark, as Your goodness and compassions won out. That by the wellness and multiplication of the oxen, and the remaining four-legged animals, the earth might be worked, and fruit might be harvested, and Your servants who call upon my name might be preserved without any corruption and partake of their very harvest. And that these, having all things that are necessary, might be increased in every good work, and glorify You, Who grants every good thing. And grant me also, Your servant and most-fervent entreater, the honour of Your all-governing Kingdom, for to You belong all glory, honour and worship, with Your beginning-less Father, and Your All-Holy and good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 41



41 See (1984) Mikron Evchologion i Agiasmatarion, 297. For more information on this saint and a similar translation of the prayer see:

Chapter Four

112

It is interesting to note St. Modestos reference to the vegan diet prescribed by God in Genesis and that the animals saved in the Ark were as a result of God’s compassionate goodness. We might also note that the animals mentioned are to assist with the working (tilling) of the land, so that its fruit might be harvested, not the animals themselves. The second prayer is by St. Mamas. The Prayer of St. Mamas Behold, I, the sinner and lowest one Mamas, dwelling in the mountains, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ milked deer and made cheese, distributing to the poor, and walking through the mountains and caves until my death. There when I was passing through, approached John and Philotheos, who entreated me saying: "The wrath of the devil has fallen upon our flocks and herdsmen and are dying terribly. We pray you, O Saint of God, pray for them, that they might be healed from every evil, in memory of the age to come, and to the glory of God.” I then said to them: "My spiritual brothers, I am a sinner, and God does not listen to sinners." But they persisted in entreating me. Hearkening, then, to their prayers, I pray to the Lord, saying: I call upon You, our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, Who descended from the Father's bosom, and was incarnate of the Holy Theotokos, and Evervirgin Mary, willingly enduring the Cross and death, and rose on the third day, granting life to the race of mortals. Hearken to me the sinner, and your unworthy servant Mamas, and all those whose spirits are spent and who are in great trouble, who call upon Your name. O Lord our God, remember the name of Your servant Mamas and do not allow their flocks or the herds of their animals to be afflicted by diabolical influence or any other sickness. Yes, O Lord our God, Who made the heaven and the earth, and Whose Word grants all things towards salvation to our people, do not neglect this my prayer, from Your humble and lowest servant; but hearken to me, O Lord Who loves mankind, and this my prayer when read, whether at a flock, or oxen, or mules. Do not let sickness or other temptation come close to these animals, that being always guarded by You, we might offer up glory and worship to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.42



http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2015/12/the-synaxarion-and-prayer-ofsaint.html. 42 Similar translations are on the net, e.g. http://analogion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13881.

Saints and Sinners

113

St. Mamas details how animals can provide for humans without losing their lives. There is recognition that the suffering of animals is linked to the sinful fallen world, the power of the devil and attacks from evil spirits; all of which are the antithesis of the all-loving and compassionate God who protects and cares for all things. One can of course, argue that the saints are more focused on the owners than the animals, but as we have noted, this anthropocentric bias was and remains the norm. However, there is still recognition of God’s providential care for all created beings and of the inherent goodness in all that was created. Importantly, neither saint is indifferent to the suffering of the animals. That these prayers continue to be in use attests to their spiritual soundness. During my research, I found that whilst there are blessings for many inanimate objects, there is none for animal sanctuaries, shelters or their animals. I also found that whilst one priest was prepared to give a blessing for an animal sanctuary in Cyprus, he informed the organisation that he would of course, not be able to bless the animals within it. 43 After consultation with other priests and in order to continue this Eastern Orthodox tradition and to address the contemporary need, the following blessing was created by Fr. Simon.44 Blessing for Animal Welfare Staff and Sanctuaries Blessed is our God, always now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and God saw that everything He made was very good. Almighty God we come together to thank you for the beauty and glory of your creation; to acknowledge our responsibility to animals and for our use of the created world. Let us pray with the whole Church for all those who struggle against the abuse of animals and for the strengthening of compassion in our hearts. Give those who work in this sanctuary the strength to continue to rescue and care for your creatures abused by others.

 43

The reason given was that animals were irrational being without eternal souls. Fr. Simon is Archpriest of Tanzania, Trustee and Treasurer of the charity, PanOrthodox Concern for Animals and gives permission for its use in all such institutions. This blessing combines extracts from the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, the Micron Euchologion and Prof. Rev. Linzey’s work. Copyright, material/prayers from Andrew Linzey, Animal Rites: Liturgies of Animal Care, SCM Press, 1999. [email protected]. Used with permission. 44

114

Chapter Four We also pray for the animals in this shelter who were abandoned and abused; neglected and ill-treated. Holy God, your mercies are all over the earth, bless the creatures in this sanctuary and those that care for them and help us delight in the works of your hands. Blessed before you O God, are those who struggle for peace and harmony in your creation. Strengthen their endeavours by the power of your Holy Spirit and may the blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit be upon them. O Creator and author of all things, giver of all spiritual graces and bestower of eternal salvation, send down your Holy Spirit with a blessing from upon high for this animal sanctuary that, fortified by the might of your heavenly protection, it may fulfil its promises to the animals of [Cyprus] and all who make use of it. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, we in turn, send You our praises and love, both now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen

This second prayer/service was created in order to address the human need to grieve for the death of a companion animal: Prayer at the death of companion animals Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. (3) Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen. Holy God, everything that has breath praises You both in this world and the next. In Your all-encompassing mercy, O God, we now commit the life of this our beloved friend and companion (name) to eternal fellowship with You. Create within us a spirit of gratitude for the life of (name) Give rest, O God, to (name) who lived among us and gave us freely of (his/her) love. Holy Father, Your Son Jesus Christ taught us that not one sparrow is forgotten in Your sight; We ask therefore for You to provide a place of green pasture where (his/her) praises will be heard in Your presence and where (he/she) shall be free from suffering and pain. God our Creator, hear our prayer:

Saints and Sinners

115

Glory to You, O Christ our God, the origin and destiny of all living things; Glory to You, O Christ our God, Who bears the wounds of all suffering; Glory to You, O Christ our God, Who transforms suffering into joy. You are the God who creates and the God who reconciles and redeems all creation. Glory to You, O Christ our God and Saviour of the Universe: in Christ shall all be made alive. Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. (3) Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen.45

The final example of prayer by St. Tryphon is of a different nature. 46 It is an exorcism for nuisance animals or disease. It too has great relevance for today. The saint is asked to intercede by performing an exorcism for the human whose crops are being damaged. Prayer of St. Tryphon Most-glorious Martyr of Christ, and soldier of the heavenly King, Tryphon most-blessed, namesake of the eternal sustenance, who bravely confessed Christ upon the earth, and for this ever receives unfading blessedness in the Heavens, and with boldness stands before the throne of the three-sun Godhead. Your martyrical greatness we take refuge in after God, all of us sinners and your unworthy servants, and we entreat your sympathetic and Christ-imitating philanthropy, that, having compassion upon us who are in danger and trouble, you may drive far from our fields and gardens and vineyards, all reptiles, and locusts, and caterpillars, and various species of insects and beasts, the diseases of fruit and leaves and roots of trees, and all vegetables and seeds and legumes of ours. For to you was granted this special and unique grace, O great champion, by our Savior Jesus Christ. Not only while still living, through your God-pleasing life, but more so now after your death through martyrdom and through blood, confessed Him and persevered for the faith.

 45

This prayer, by Fr. Simon, combines elements of the Eastern Orthodox Funeral Service with elements from the “Liturgy for Animal Burial.” In Linzey, Animal Rites: Liturgies of Animal Care, 109-118. Used with permission. An article explaining the need for this is available at panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org under the title “Death of a Companion Animal.” 46 “Exorcism of the Holy Martyr Tryphon.” In The Great Book of Needs, 53. I am grateful to Fr. Joseph Skinner for helping me locate this source.

Chapter Four

116

Yes, we confess that through our sins, we have been delivered up to these such sorrows, and we have fallen under God’s anger, but you O brave Champion, only desiring your martyrical boldness is needed; we believe that easily you extinguish the ban against us by God and transform our faintheartedness into good-heartedness. Therefore, because of our sins, we have no boldness to stand before your champion-like glory, and immediately have you make intercession, therefore we place your blood, which you O all-famed one shed for Christ as our intercessor instead, and the martyrical struggles which you endured in your most-suffering body. Look down, therefore, O most-compassionate Martyr, upon these, for you confessed Christ and received the unfading crown of martyrdom, and hearken to the prayer from your humble supplicants, and deliver from the present dangers of reptiles and locusts and beasts and various vermin, of those that ruin the fruits of our fields and vineyards and gardens. For we are in danger by them of starvation and death and being left utterly desolate, if it were not for your compassions speedily granted to all of us, that through your ready protection, driving away the coming danger, we may ceaselessly and necessarily magnify your name, our saviour and benefactor and helper whom we ascribe after God, and through you we glorify the common Master, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is glorified on earth and in Heaven. To Whom belongs all glory, honour and worship, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.

If we cut through the flowery language, what we see is the reality and conflict of the fallen world. Instead of the peaceful and violence-free harmony between all creatures, where food and space were available to all, we now have conflict between man and God’s other creatures over food and land. Despite knowledge of poisons being available at that time 47 both men ask St. Mamas to pray for God’s help. Met. Anthony of Sourozh recalls a similar scenario in his own use of this prayer and admits his lack of faith whilst doing so: A Mouse’s Tail! A moment came when we lived in London many years ago with my mother and grandmother and our house was infested with mice. They ran about on everything. We didn’t know what to do because we did not want to put mousetraps, because we felt sorry for the mice, but we were afraid little pieces of bread with poison because we were afraid for my grandmother, who was in her nineties, and when she saw a piece of bread

 47

E.g., Hercules uses the venom of the Hydra monster to poison his arrows and Homer implies the use of poisoned weapons during the Trojan War.

Saints and Sinners

117

she would collect it and eat it and I did not know how close her health was to that of the mouse. Then I remembered that in the big Book of Prayers there is an admonition, written by one of the Saints of old, addressed to all the nuisances of the world. It begins with lions and tigers and ends with insects and on route you meet a variety of animals, among them mice. I looked at that and thought I can’t believe that a mouse will listen to an admonition, but who knows? This saint was not a fool, he wasn’t a comedian, he must have known what he was doing, so I thought I’ll try! I put my stole on, sat on my bed, put the big Book of Prayers on my knees and waited. And a mouse came; yes, I had a word with the saint. I said: “Look, I don’t believe a word of this admonition. I do not believe that mice or tiger or elephant or insect would ever understand what you are saying or do it. I will say the words in the mouse’s hearing and you will bring the prayer into God’s hearing, so I will have nothing to do with it except reading the prayer.” And I sat and indeed Eddy the mouse came trotty, trotty, out of the fireplace. I made the sign of the Cross on it and said, “Sit still and listen” and the first miracle occurred. He sat up like this, [on hind legs with front paws held close to his chest] whiskers moving and didn’t budge. I read the admonition and said “now go and tell the other ones.” He fell on his paws, disappeared into the fireplace and all the mice disappeared. Well I am telling you this story because it says nothing complimentary about the mouthpiece but it does say something about the fact that the saint who writes the prayer had the faith – total – and so, if you take any prayer, or your book of prayers, read the name of the saint which is at the beginning of the prayer, say St Basil, St John Chrysostom or whoever it is, say I will read your prayer, commenting on it, to be honest, and you will bring it to God. I have no faith to match your prayer.48

This is an amusing anecdote from the Metropolitan and we must be thankful for the lives of the mice who responded to the prayer but it also illustrates the conflict between humans and the animals who encroach upon human space. The final point is to note the ambivalence shown by Met. Anthony that is typical in modern societies. He did not want to use the trap because he felt sorry for the mice yet his reluctance to use poison appears to be more out of concern for his family rather than the mice. He indicates that the trap is more ‘humane’ than the poison and I believe we should examine this point. The trap forces us to acknowledge the results of our actions, a



48 This is a transcript from a sermon “The Place of Prayer in Christian Life,” given by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh.

Chapter Four

118

dead animal, whose fault lies in that it comes into our territory. In many hagiographies the saints are depicted sharing their space with a variety of animals, including those who could do them great harm. Death by poison on the other hand, is not immediate. We do not generally see the dead animal and thus the consequences of our action; as a result, the suffering and death of the creature, is much easier to ignore. Poison is widely used by individuals, farmers and government authorities to kill animals ranging from rats and mice to cats and dogs and their death is extremely painful and slow. As we shall see in the Cyprus Case Study, the illegal use of poison is commonplace. How much better it would be, if the leaders of the Church and its priests promoted St. Tryphon’s prayer and condemned the use of poison because of the pain and suffering its use inflicts. I condense Met. Kallistos comments on the point: I would condemn the poisoning of animals. There will be situations where domestic animals do need to be put down because they are diseased or because they are breeding too many and there is not enough land to support them but poisoning would seem to me a cruel way of dealing with this problem. There are ways in which animals can be put to sleep that do not involve a long and painful death. I think that we do have a responsibility some times to limit the numbers of domestic animals but not by poisoning. Equally, I suppose we do need to keep down wild animals, which may be praying on our flocks or herds – the wolves on Mount Athos for example were quite a nuisance. Unfortunately, there are now no more wolves there, they have all been disposed of and I regret that. Again, poisoning seems to me, an evil way to dispose of animals because it will usually involve a lingering and painful death. There are more humane ways available to deal with any problems.49

He is clear that the use of poison is a cruel way of disposing of unwanted animals, which indicates the sin inherent in its use. This will be a challenge to many but there are alternatives to its use. There is the possibility of working with animal protection/conservation groups who are able to offer several options or a combination of options to address a problem with a variety of species. There is the ‘trap, neuter and release’ program, which is very successful though more commonly used with dogs and cats. Generally, the animals are released into the same area and gradually the population reduces over time. This approach requires humans to provide space for animals to inhabit and patience from the humans living in the area. In certain species, animals are moved to safer

 49

Chapter Six.

Saints and Sinners

119

environments and I have used this method with snakes near my home in Cyprus. Trapping is useful for species such as rats and mice and cages are readily available on the internet. With regard to wolves, this is achievable by introducing large herd dogs such as those used by Turkish shepherds. This type of dog uses a sophisticated pack approach, which effectively keeps the wolves away from the herds. There are compensation schemes in some countries for livestock taken by wolves. The key point is that there are alternatives to poisoning animals but they often require the provision of a large enough area for animals to feed themselves without coming into contact and thus conflict with humans.50 Theokritoff’ addresses the aspect of conflict is her discussion on coexistence and interdependence. She gives two examples from Eastern Orthodox tradition in which she concludes that there is a measure of moral equivalency between the needs of humans and those of other creatures. The first example concerns the destruction of St Anthony’s vegetable patch by wild assess: [He] ‘playfully’ took hold of one of them and asked it, “Why do you hurt me when I do you no injury?” He then commanded them in the name of the Lord to go and graze elsewhere. 51

The second is a contemporary tale from Mount Athos, where an Elder finding a wild boar had similarly ruined the community’s vegetable plot: Rather than killing or transporting it, the Elder had a special stall made for it in the stables. He gave the animal strict instructions to leave the vegetable garden alone; if it was hungry, it was to come to the stable and ask for food. 52

There are therefore alternative solutions to the problem of nuisance animals other than death by poison or hunting but it requires an element of sacrifice and creative thought from humans in order to solve the immediate problem. Met. Kallistos’s condemnation of the use of poison raises two questions. Are we guilty of sin if we use it? If we use poison and fail to repent of our sins what are the implications for our salvation? In light of the Eastern Orthodox teachings above, it would appear that in



50 An excellent book that unpacks the problem of conflict, albeit from a different stance would be Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. 51 Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation, 130. 52 Theokritoff, 455.

120

Chapter Four

order to prevent the suffering of individual animals, we ought to use the available alternatives. When we read the lives of the Fathers and the ordeals they suffered, we can only wonder at their fortitude and their faith. Eastern Orthodoxy rightly recognises their suffering and their sacrifices. It also recognises that whilst we may have the best of intentions, in our fallen state we are likely to fail. The Fathers offer us guidance on all manner of subjects and our failure is no exception: The strength of those who wish to acquire the virtues lies in this: that should they fall, they do not lose heart but stand up and try again.53

The wonder of Christian theology is that there is hope for us if we continue, despite our struggles, towards the goal of attaining the Likeness of Christ who is without violence even to the burning flax.54 This is an important and challenging teaching for us all but particularly so for those who try to live lives without causing harm to animals.

The Saints Summary It would appear from the hagiographies and the contemporary commentary on them that through God’s enlightenment and grace, the possibility exists for humans to attain a Likeness to God, which brings forth a type of pre-lapsarian existence in this fallen world. The restoration of cosmic harmony and mutual benefit is evident and a glimpse of the future kingdom is available. It is important to note that the hagiographies have no suggestion of any negativity in the befriending or establishing of loving, compassionate relationships with animals. Importantly, from the earliest times until our present day, the abuse of animals is a sin requiring repentance There is evidence of saints providing prayers for animals, which continue to be used. In light of the above teachings it seems reasonable to conclude that many saints endorsed a Christ-like love for non-human animals, where “compassion, not dogma, not orthodoxy, not orthopraxis, but love and empathy and mercy for others”55 , including animals, is evident. I identify a number of sins against animals and I outline some of the available alternatives to the killing of ‘nuisance’ animals. I indicate that these solutions require creative thought and an element of sacrifice from

 53

Chryssavgis, The Reflections of Abba Zosimas, 17. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.20.10. 55 Vivian, “The Peaceable Kingdom,” 79-80. 54

Saints and Sinners

121

humankind. 56 I argue that the sin inherent in animal abuse and suffering has profound theological implications for humanity and it is to this element of my overarching hypothesis that I now turn.

The Sinners The Sin of Animal Abuse and its Relevance for Human Salvation The Fathers are not the only ancient voices we can refer to for references to animal suffering and environmental destruction. Harden (2013) gives many examples of primary source material with statements on themes ranging from historical commentary on pre/games animal abuse, to the killing of animals for fun/spectacle/sport and their link to the slaughter of humans for those same purposes.57 For example, we may look at texts from Apuleius on bears, (Metamorphosis 4.13-14) and to Ovid for details of foxes being set of fire in honour of Ceres (Fasti 4.681-712). To Pliny for circus fights and the elephants “who sought the mercy of the crowd with indescribable gestures of supplication [and] wailing,” (Natural History 8: 6, 7) and, for graphic details of elephant and tiger hunting (Natural History 8. 8, 25). Cicero relates both the event and the compassion which overcame the crowd who recognized “that in those great animals there was some fellowship with the race of humans,” (Letters to his friends 7.1.2-3) and, for pressure on animal numbers for ‘the games’ (Letters to his friends 2.2.2). Xenophon describes the connection between hunting and the military “devious and lowly tricks not to be used on humans except in war” (On Hunting, 11.1-4). Caesar for reference for the now-extinct Urus or Aurock, which were captured in pits (Gallic War); Strabo for the “impacts of human activity on the natural world and human community” (Geography 2.5.33); Greek Anthology 7.626 and Pliny, Natural History 8.20, 24-5 for vast areas being void of wild animals.58

 56

We might consider a weed as a plant growing in the wrong place. Perhaps it would be useful to view nuisance animals in a similar way. 57 We can use this as an early example of the link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence and Bishop Isaiah speaks to this point in Chapter Seven. 58 Also, Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 200f-201c; Polybius, Histories 30.25; Cassius Dio, Roman History 39.38, 51.22, 73.18, 77.1, (epitome) 66.25, 68.15, 78.10; Augustus, Res Gestae 22; Suetonius, Titus 7 for numbers and types captured, cited in, Harden, Animals in the Classical World, 174-196.

122

Chapter Four

We are already aware of God’s Covenant with all of His created beings and of the ontological link between humans and the rest of the created world. The theme of cosmic disharmony caused by human sin is evident in the work of many early and contemporary theologians. 59 St. Cyril of Alexandria explains a natural disaster and starvation in Egypt when teaching that the evil that people have done pollutes the earth and angers God. 60 He also describes the earth as a mother and condemns violence against her as a kind of murder, joining it with the violence against people. 61 This teaching has clear relevance to the subject of animal suffering. Several Fathers have made clear statements that engaging in abusive and exploitative acts are sinful and harmful to human salvation. St. Ephrem links sinful human actions with ecological crisis62 whilst St. Basil offers hope in his teaching that righteous behaviour will redress the imbalance.63 Brock’s commentary on St. Ephrem confirms this ‘cosmic’ relationship: In modern terms one could say that for Ephrem the physical and spiritual ecospheres are intimately linked: because of the interconnectedness of everything, the abuse of nature, resulting from the human misuse of free will, will have consequences in all sorts of unexpected places. 64

St. Irenaeus refers to ‘the games’ as hateful spectacles where the soteriological implications for humans are clear: …that bloody spectacle hateful both to God and men, in which gladiators either fight with wild beasts, or singly encounter one another.65

St. John Chrysostom gives a similar teaching in his discourse against the games:

 59

An excellent study recommended by Met. Kallistos is Murray, The Cosmic Covenant. 60 Cyrille d’Alexandrie, 7: 2 SC 392: 4, 3; also, Lettres Festales (1-6) SC 372 cited in, Gschwandtner, The Role of Non-Human Creation, 102. 61 Cyrille d’Alexandrie, Lettres Festales 8: 3, SC 392: 81; 8: 4, SC 392: 89. 62 Ephrem the Syrian, “The Harp of the Spirit,” 7.3. 63 Holman, The Hungry Are Dying, 185, 187; also, Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 16, who is clear that various forms of social injustice pollute the land. 64 Brock, The Luminous Eye, 167; also, Efthimiou in Hallman, EcoTheology, 94. 65 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.6.3; also, Stevenson, A New Eusebius, “Valentinus, Animal and Spiritual Men,” 84.

Saints and Sinners

123

On a Friday, when your Master was being crucified on behalf of the world and such a sacrifice was being offered, and paradise was being opened... why did you leave the church and the spiritual sacrifice, and the gathering of brothers and sisters and the sobriety of fasting? Were you carried off to that spectacle as the devil’s captive? 66

Practices involving both human and animal abuse and exploitation are condemned and linked with the devil and sin. These teachings would be apposite for the sin and evil in many sub-themes of animal suffering e.g. in hunting for ‘sport’, bullfighting, underground/illegal betting on organised dog fighting and badger baiting. St. Cyril of Jerusalem outlines the traditional view that all sins are the work of Satan and that if one continues to sin, one will be judged and found wanting.67 Immediately following this passage St Cyril identifies a further three examples of sin and evil, two of which involve the abuse and exploitation of animals: Now the pomp of the devil is the madness of theatres,68 and horse races, and hunting, and all such vanity from which that holy man praying to be delivered says to God, turn my eyes from looking vanity (Ps 118, 37) …Do not be interested...nor in the madness of them who in hunts expose themselves to wild beasts, that they may pamper their miserable appetite…Also ignore horse races, that frantic and soul-subverting spectacle. For all these are the pomp of the devil. 69

St. Cyril clearly identifies hunting and horse racing70 as two examples of “the pomp of the devil”. Whilst we may debate what level of concern he had for the animals involved in these spectacles, the key point is that he defines them as sinful and “soul-subverting” spectacles. It is clear that these practices have negative soteriological implications for those who watch or indulge in such practices. That St. Cyril identified hunting and horse racing as examples of the devil’s work is profoundly significant when examined in the light of species extinction and the social problems

 66

Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, Against the Games and Theatres, 119; also, Tsironi, Liturgy as Re-Enactment in the Light who mentions Chrysostom, the Synod of Carthage, the Theodosian Codex and Justinian’s Pandektes. 67 Cyril of Jerusalem, First Mystagogical Catechesis, 5, 282. 68 Tsironi writes on the theatre at that time ending with “the stripping of women on stage.” 69 Cyril of Jerusalem, First Mystagogical Catechesis, 6, 283. See also St. Eustachius and the link between hunting, devils and false gods in Stefanatos, Animals Sanctified, 145-7. 70 See https://www.animalaid.org.uk/the-issues/our-campaigns/horse-racing/for details of the number of horses killed in British racecourses and the use of whips.

124

Chapter Four

resulting from violence and gambling.71 Note also his reference to vanity which I submit has relevance for some of the other animal suffering themes previously outlined, such as the wearing of fur or ‘traditional medicines’ to enhance sexual prowess. Such opinion is further supported by Canon Law. At the Council in Trullo, (A.D. 692) some three hundred years later, we find not only the same teachings but also an indication of how sinful these practices were believed to be by the severity of the penalties imposed - priests are “deposed” and laymen “cut off.” 72 This is confirmed by the Byzantine canonist Balsamon’s notes on the Ancient Epitome of Canon LI: Wherefore those who have once sinned deliberately are admonished to cease. If they are not willing to obey, they are to be deposed. But those who are constantly engaged in this wickedness, if they are clerics, they must be deposed from their clerical place, if laymen they must be cut off. 73

The recognition of wickedness and the negative soteriological implications of these practices for human salvation several centuries after St Cyril’s warnings, together with their inclusion into Canon Law, is not something the Fathers would have undertaken without a great of deal of deliberation. As such, I believe we have a clear indication of the ‘mind of the Fathers’ on this theme and, the seriousness of the sin and evil inherent in these practices. There are further examples of this recognition, though they are subtler in nature. For example, I remind my reader of the previous quote from St. Gregory 74 describing hunters as artful hedonists and the hagiographies above and St. Ambrose’s use of negative language associated with hunting in Psalms 10 and 123 when teaching on our souls being set free from “grave sins” and “slave to desires.”75 Post-Fall God gives us the dispensation to eat animals and thereby to hunt animals for food, but there is no evidence that God gives us animals in order to indulge our passions. In the next chapter, I present the results of my social science research on the island of Cyprus where I have a home and am therefore acquainted with the problems of illegal hunting on the island. Here I present a brief

 71

The discussion on gambling is not for this work, but there would be few within the Church who do not understand the consequences for society in general or for the individuals and their families, caught in the nightmare of addiction to gambling. 72 Canon LI, The Canons of the Council in Trullo, The Seven Ecumenical Councils. 73 My emphasis. Canon LI. See also Tsironi for further commentary. 74 Gregory of Nyssa, 1st Homily, On Love of the Poor. In Holman, 193-199. 75 Ambrose, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke, 7, 311-12.

Saints and Sinners

125

extract from a report by BirdLife Cyprus, which confirms the dire consequences of hunting migratory or native bird species: The analysis of the field data using the TRIM program showed that illegal bird trapping reached record levels. Mist-netting levels for autumn 2014 were 47% higher compared to 2002, when we started our systematic monitoring, and the total number of lime-sticks recorded by both enforcement agencies and environmental NGOs exceeded 6,000. With these trapping activity levels, BirdLife Cyprus estimated that over 2 million birds could have been trapped across the whole of Cyprus, during autumn 2014, highlighting that nowadays the island is a death trap for hundreds of thousands of migratory birds, many of them threatened. At a jurisdiction level, autumn 2014 mist netting levels showed a decrease of 23% for the Republic and an increase of 199% for the Dhekelia SBA, both in comparison to 2002. In the last few years the Dhekelia SBA has become a mist-netting hotspot, in particular the area of Cape Pyla where acacia patches are managed by trappers for the sole purpose of this illegal activity. On the other hand, the majority of lime-sticks are found in the Republic areas, as well as the restaurants serving illegal ambelopoulia. It is evident that this illegal supply and demand business activity cannot be effectively combated individually and requires the joint effort of all the key stakeholders.76

Two of the greatest criticisms of the Church in Cyprus, is that it is silent on hunting and animal abuse in general and that it allows hunting on its land. If, as the early Fathers suggest, sins against the environment lead to a break in the cosmic relationship and that hunting is a sin serious enough to dismiss a priest, it seems reasonable to conclude that the contemporary practice of killing animals for sport or recreation is likely to result in a continuation of cosmic disharmony. At this point we have only referenced hunting with guns but other methods are used for trapping animals for food and fur and these too are illegal in many, if not all countries: Animals caught in snare suffer terrible stress and can sustain horrific injuries. In their desperate bid to escape, they can be disembowelled by the wire, wrench bones out of sockets and even chew through their own limbs. A survey of vets, wildlife crime officers and Scottish SPCA Inspectors



76 Birdlife Cyprus Newsletter, 5th April 2015. My emphasis draws attention to British responsibility. The SBA refers to British Sovereign Base Abroad, which falls under the control of the British army/government. It is important to note that Cyprus is not the only offender in this region. Available at http://www.birdlifecyprus.org.

126

Chapter Four published in November 2007, found that 90% believed that animals caught in snares had suffered.77

There is a related point to hunting and that is killing animals for the fur-trade. These past few years have seen a revival in the use of fur in fashion, which in spiritual terms could be included into debates on the misuse of our freedom by indulging our passions and vanity. The global fur trade according to today’s business analysis is worth $38.5 billion with 85 million mink pelts (as one example) making up $3.8 million of that total.78 Fifty years ago, I saw a documentary on the Canadian seal hunt, which showed the clubbing to death of baby seals as their helpless mothers looked on, in order not to damage the pelts for the fur and fashion industries. 79 Recently the Humane Society International documented countless seal pups continuing to die in agony using the same methods. Using this evidence, they have persuaded numerous countries to ban seal products, yet the Canadian Seal Traders association continue to apply for more licenses.80 I am reminded of Philo’s comments on the “cruel disposition” of those who separate mother and calves for “the pleasure of the belly” or “unpleasantness of the soul.” I suggest this is equally applicable to the violent separation of the mother seal who watches her pup clubbed to death in order for some humans to wear their skins. I am also reminded of the biblical and patristic teachings that just because some things are lawful this does not mean we should indulge our passion for them and, that we should not use our freedom as a cloak to hide our maliciousness. I have already noted the monk sent to St. Savas to be guided on repentance after being expelled from his monastery because he had struck and killed a mule. In light of a great deal of scientific and undercover evidence, on the immense suffering in the fur trade, together with the teachings presented throughout this work, it is reasonable to suggest that the Fathers would condemn the killing of animals in this way. They would do so, not only because of the ‘evil profit’ derived from unnecessary and uncompassionate acts but also, because so many suitable alternatives are readily available. There is a final point to be made and one frequently overlooked in debates on hunting, which again brings us back to the harm to humans

 77

http://www.league.org.uk/our-campaigns/snaring/whats-wrong-with-snaring. Many animal protection groups throughout the world record such injuries. 78 For more details on animal suffering in the fur industry see https://www.antifurcoalition.org and Figures 1-9 and 1-10. 79 Figure 1-8. 80 See https://action.hsi.org/page/22048/action/1?ea.tracking.id=email-

Saints and Sinners

127

who perpetrate or witness such brutal acts. Contemporary psychological research indicates that ‘observed aggression’, which is intrinsic to hunting, is an important factor in aggressive social behaviours. I condense Gullone’s comments: [Observed behaviour] predicts an increase in aggressive physiological arousal following violence exposure…It also predicts an increased acceptance and endorsement of violent behaviour. There is therefore, strong empirical evidence indicating that exposure to real-life or media violence plays a strong role in the formation of cognitions related to aggression and violence, (Flynn, 1999b) as well as the development of aggressive behaviour. These findings have significant implications for the role that legalized aggressive behaviours such as hunting, rodeos, and fishing have on the development of aggression, particularly for individuals with a vulnerable disposition toward the development of such behaviours, or those within a vulnerable environment or ‘risky’ family. Labelling certain aggressive behaviours as entertainment or sport because they are targeting certain species and others as antisocial because they are targeting other species…is incongruous.81

This last point draws attention to the ambiguity in our messages and arguments surrounding the theme. Baldry (2005) found that youths who witnessed violence between family members, or who witnessed harm to animals, were three times more likely to be cruel to animals, compared to peers without such experiences.82 Thompson and Gullone (2006) report: That those who reported the witnessing of animal cruelty on at least one occasion also reported significantly higher levels of animal cruelty, compared to youth who did not witness animal cruelty. Of particular note is [their] finding that witnessing a stranger abusing an animal, predicted lower levels of animal cruelty. This contrasted with the finding that witnessing animal cruelty by a friend, relative, parent, or sibling predicted higher levels of cruelty.83

 81

Gullone, Animal Cruelty, Antisocial Behaviour and Aggression: More than a Link; also, Thompson and Gullone, “An Investigation into the Association Between the Witnessing of Animal Abuse and Adolescents’ Behavior Toward Animals,” 223-243; Flynn, “Animal Abuse in Childhood and Later Support for Interpersonal Violence in Families,” 161-172; Currey, “Animal Cruelty by Children Exposed to Domestic violence,” 425-435; DeGue and DiLillo, “Is Animal Cruelty A ‘Red Flag.” 82 Baldry “Animal abuse among preadolescents,” 97-110. 83 “An Investigation into the Association Between the Witnessing of Animal Abuse and Adolescents’ Behavior Toward Animals,” 118-9; also, Flynn, “Why

128

Chapter Four

Hunting certainly fits both areas of concern, for many parents take their children on hunting trips. It is important to note here that St. Cyril and the Fathers of the Holy Council did not permit any form of hunting. There may well be reluctance by local priests to uphold the Fathers’ teachings by speaking out against hunting for it may well put them at-odds with their local communities and powerful vested interests. Met. Kallistos addresses this point when stating that the Church has always taught a difficult message. Despite powerful stake-holders/vested interests, we should continue to do so.84 There are moves within sections of the Eastern Orthodox Church to address aspects of this problem. For example, the Holy Synod of Greece has ordered a total ban on the use of weapons by the clergy and hunting is no exception. 85 Bishop Isaias was ready to address this issue when I brought it to his attention and his teaching here, not only continues the early tradition outlined above but also adds further clarity on the contemporary problem: If you hunt-you must eat it! Hunting for food is one thing, hunting-killing for fun is another; it is a misuse and a sin.86

This supports H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teachings which have identified ecological devastation as “a grave sin”, “a very serious sin”, “a mortal sin”, an “unforgivable insult” against God; although at present I am unaware that he has specifically identified hunting as one of these acts. What he does acknowledge however is the important role for the leaders of the Church in such matters: We people of religion have to inspire more and more our faithful, to give them a good example...If we (the people of the world) have arrived at a



Family Professionals Can No Longer Ignore Violence Toward Animals.”; Guerra, Huesmann and Spindler, “Community Violence Exposure.” 84 Chapter Six. 85 See http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/9263-the-holy-synod-of-greece -disarms-the-clergymen-hunters/?hl=animals#entry120307, although it is a somewhat poorly informed debate. See also Chapter Seven. 86 Given in a meeting with the president of Cyprus BirdLife and relates to their huge problem of illegal hunting and its strong connections to organized crime. Numerous scientific reports evidence the rationality and sentience of hunted animals. Hunting either by riders with hounds or vehicles, results in animals suffering immense psychological distress, fear and terror because they understand that their lives are in danger.

Saints and Sinners

129

Kairos-it means that we representatives of religion, did not fulfil our mission.87

At the end of Chapter Two, I offered proposals for engagement by the leaders of our Church. Here I repeat the call for our leaders to acknowledge the sin inherent in hunting. I submit that it would be an important teaching for the reduction of animal suffering and ecological devastation in this ‘groaning’ world. The final point is made through the examples from Saints Basil and Augustine who offer further behavioural guidance via the Golden and Silver rules. Whilst they are not referring to our treatment of animals per se, their teachings are relevant for theological discussions on animal and environmental suffering and evil. As such, they could be part of the basic framework of an Eastern Orthodox environmental and animal theology: Do you know what good you ought to do to your neighbour? The good that you expect from him yourself. Do you know what is evil? That which you would not wish another to do to you. 88 For thou judgest that there is evil in that, which to suffer though art not willing: and this thing then art contrived to know by an inward law, that in thy very heart is written in us. 89

The Sinners Summary The theme of cosmic disharmony caused by human sin is found in the work of many early and contemporary theologians. Several Fathers made clear statements that engaging in certain acts or attending certain events is sinful and thus harmful to human salvation. St. Cyril’s teaching that all sin, including hunting and horse racing, is the work and “pomp of the devil”, which has negative soteriological implications for humanity is a case in point. The inclusion of these teachings into Canon Law confirms the sin and wickedness inherent in these practices. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that the mind of the Fathers is clear on the negative soteriological consequences for those who attend, “soul-subverting” spectacles or act in ways, which cause the unnecessary suffering of animals.

 87

The Green Patriarch, http://www.becketfilms.com/index.php/environmentfilms/the-green-patriarch. 88 Basil, Hexaemeron, 9.3. 89 Deane, The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine, 85-88.

130

Chapter Four

Contemporary commentaries from senior Orthodox theologians confirm that poisoning is an evil way of disposing of unwanted animals and that hunting other than for food, is a misuse of God’s non-human beings and a sin. Contemporary psychological research confirms that ‘observed aggression’ which is intrinsic to hunting, is an important factor in aggressive social behaviours and cruelty to animals is recognised within the scientific community as an indicator of various levels of mental ill health. The leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have expressed their concern on the problems arising from environmental sin and it seems reasonable therefore to expect them to make pronouncements on subjects such as hunting, the wearing of fur and the poisoning of animals, all of which cause immense suffering to the animals within that environment.

Chapter Four Summary I argue that the biblical and patristic teachings above open theological space for developing a truly inclusive theology, which recognises God’s loving-kindness, compassionate and merciful care for His non-human animal beings. I establish that through God’s enlightenment and grace, the possibility exists for humans to attain a likeness of God, which brings forth a type of pre-lapsarian existence in the fallen world; where cosmic harmony and mutual benefit is restored, and a glimpse of the future kingdom is available. In general, the saints took care of animals by providing for their needs, protecting them from harm, offering sanctuary from hunters and, in the example of St. Giles, offering his life for the sake of his animal companion and friend. There is evidence of one saint using her influence to convince the powerful Prince of Powys that hunting with hounds was against God’s will, which resulted in the Prince banning hunting from his land. In addition, we learn that her argument was so persuasive that the Prince turned his land into a sanctuary. Similar action is entirely possible for the contemporary Church. These actions follow the teachings of one of the Fathers of the early Church, St Cyril of Jerusalem who clearly identifies hunting and horse racing as examples of the “pomp of the devil’ and “soul-subverting” practices which ought to be avoided by laity and priests alike. The saints’ hagiographies have a positive focus, with no suggestion of conflict over territory or negativity in the befriending or establishing loving, compassionate relationships with animals. Importantly, the misuse and abuse of animals are sins requiring repentance. As a result, it is likely that a “true” saint would be against the killing of animals in cruel ways or

Saints and Sinners

131

for vanity, gluttony, evil profit, fun, sport or recreation.90 The saints are our guides on many issues including animal protection. They are examples of people who not only provide care, assistance and protection, but also show love, empathy and mercy, for both domesticated and wild animals. As such, they can be described as early examples of animal protectionists and/or conservationists. I present biblical and patristic commentary that establish the ontological link between humans and the rest of the created world and of the original pre-lapsarian “exquisite single euphonious harmony.”91 I also present early commentary, which recognizes the negative consequences of this ontological link, where “the evil that people have done pollutes the earth and angers God”; 92 where sinful human actions, including social injustice, links to ecological crisis because “love has fled.” 93 Similar teaching is evident in modern commentary on the environment, which suggest, “the lives of the saints teach us that God’s creation is destroyed by the avarice, greed, gluttony, pride and all the negative passions of humans.”94 These teachings are equally relevant to animals who are also destroyed through cruel, abusive and exploitative treatments, which also result from the avarice, greed, gluttony, pride and all the negative passions of humans; yet I have observed that their suffering is frequently unreferenced. The bible and patristic commentaries inform us that righteous and virtuous behaviour will redress the cosmic imbalance. It seems reasonable therefore, to suggest that virtuous and righteous behaviour in the form of compassion and mercy to God’s other created beings would help redress this imbalance. To help achieve this reduction, I remind us of two teachings on the Golden and Silver rules which could be incorporated into the basic framework of an Eastern Orthodox animal theology and ethics of love. I state that God’s salvific plan includes the need for us to turn away from the wicked and sinful acts of abuse and exploitation of all God’s created beings in order to reduce their suffering. Whilst the saints’ ability to reflect the true Image is manifest because of their great love for God, I submit that their ability to love the ‘other’ by living compassionate and merciful lives is another example of where theology and practical action combine. I argue that such guidance is as relevant today as it was in

 90

I expand this discussion presently. Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione, 146. 92 Cyrille d’Alexandrie, Lettres Festales, 7.2, SC 392:4. 93 Holman, On the Love of the Poor, 185. 94 Efthimiou, in, Hallman, EcoTheology, 94. 91

132

Chapter Four

previous ages; arguably more so in our increasingly secular age, for it provides a virtuous, moral and ethical voice and pathway to guide us not only in our treatment of animals but also in our journey towards the Likeness of God. I argue throughout this work that the sin inherent in animal abuse and suffering has profound theological implications for humanity. The leaders of the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Church could reaffirm the early teachings on the sin of hunting animals for fun, sport and entertainment. They could also define such practices as examples of our misuse of God’s creatures and our freedom. If they were to do so, the likely outcome would be an immediate reduction in both the practice and the suffering of huge numbers of animals. At the very least one would expect condemnation of the huge problem of illegal hunting. It would be equally helpful if they were to acknowledge patristic teachings on vanity and gluttony with regard to the unnecessary suffering of animals trapped or bred for the wearing of fur or reared in exploitative and cruel intensive farming practices. If such teachings are endorsed and taught in our parishes, it would give authority to those Eastern Orthodox Christians who try to apply and extend the Eastern Orthodox environmental debate to the subject of animal suffering. Modern Orthodox commentators urge the Eastern Orthodox Church to educate itself with relevant scientific information on environmental matters and, to become involved in practical terms in environmental movements. I make a similar plea for increased knowledge on all aspects of animal suffering. I accept the traditional Eastern Orthodox teachings that laws and rules alone will not bring us to salvation, but I submit that righteous and virtuous behaviours combined with genuine repentance, a loving and compassionate heart seeking after the likeness of God will help us in our journey. It is suggested that as we struggle in this world we may, through the saints’ examples, be encouraged in the knowledge that every act of love and compassion is part of the overthrowing of the evil in this world. Whilst we may fail and fall, we are to rise up and try again. Challenging questions arising here are what message does it convey to the laity if the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church fail to engage with the complex subject of animal suffering and/or to affirm the patristic and contemporary teachings on the sin of hunting and horse racing? What are the consequences if they choose not to do so? It is to these questions that I now turn via my social science research in Cyprus.

Fig. 1-1 Deliberate Cruelty

Fig. 1-2 Gestation/Farrowing Crates



Fig. 1-3 Foie Gras production,

Fig. 1-4 Food and Skin production in Asia

Fig. 1-5 Polar bear in Russian circus

Fig. 1-6 Bullfighting in Spain

Fig. 1-7 Cecil the Lion

Fig. 1-8 Canadian seal hunt

Fig. 1-9 Racoon Fur Farm

Fig. 1-10 Mink Fur Farm

Fig. 1-11 Moon bear in crush-cage

Fig. 1-12 Animal Experiment Cat

Fig. 1-13 Animal Experiment Primate

Fig. 3-4 Triptych “Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering.”



Fig. 4-1 St Gerasimos.

Fig. 4-3 St. Mamas



Fig. 4-2 St Modestos

Fig. 4-4 St. Seraphim of Sarov

CHAPTER FIVE CYPRUS CASE STUDY

Overview Chapter Five presents research conducted between 2011 and 2013. This is presented as the ‘praxis’ in the form of the Cyprus Case Study.1 From my research, from my experience of living in an Eastern Orthodox country and from my conversations with Eastern Orthodox clergy and laity in other Orthodox countries, I formed the opinion that it would be necessary to demonstrate the existence of the gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice on the subject of animal suffering. Having previously established the theory, this chapter examines the practice. This consisted of empirical research conducted between 2011 and 2013 and took the form of collecting data from an online survey 2 and the undertaking of a Practical Theology and qualitative research enquiry, which selected a purposive target group3, the experts on animal protection in Cyprus. The results were not favourable to the Eastern Orthodox Church. These findings were presented to a local priest whom I have known for many years and whom I knew would allow me to present my research. Whilst we would not consider his opinion equal to that of biblical and patristic sources, he believed his opinion would be in accordance with the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The results are surprising.

 1

Hereafter, C. C. S. See Appendix A for more material. This research took place in 2011 by Cyprus Voice for Animals, an association of animal protection organisations in Cyprus. (Hereafter C. V. A.) Appendix A has further material with the full survey available online at: http://www.cva.com.cy. Used with permission. 3 This is a single-point sample, chosen with specific criteria that are explicit and clarified in terms of the ability to answer the research questions, Swinton and Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, 205. 2

Chapter Five

134

Part One 2011 Research: Cyprus Voice for Animals Online Survey I investigate this aspect via positivist and interpretivist methodologies, which were used to provide empirical research on this theme. In this section, this took the form of collecting data from an online survey conducted by the coalition of animal welfare groups on the island. The graph below outlines the demographic details and analysis of their 2011 research.4 2011 Demographic Analysis

Graph 5-1 C. V. A. Online Survey Demographic Data (2011)

 4

Used with permission from the C. V. A.

Cyprus Case Study

135

The majority of the sample consisted of women (74%) as opposed to men (26%). Ages ranged from 18 years to over 61. Approximately 34% of the sample was between the ages of 18-30 and 28% between the ages of 31-40. The age distribution is not surprising for this type of internet survey. Facebook is a significant forum for individuals seeking to learn more information about animal welfare in Cyprus, to notify the public of any issues (missing and found animals, high poisoning rates in certain areas, etc.) and to meet like-minded people. There is an active community on Facebook for people concerned about animal protection in Cyprus, and evidence would suggest that most people involved are younger individuals. It is therefore, no surprise that this age group is so highly represented in this survey. On the other hand, older age groups were not easily targeted in this survey due to the very nature of data collection. Internet surveys are effective for reaching younger individuals and those with access to a computer and the internet. Older individuals may not be sufficiently represented because they may not have access to a computer or the internet. Paper surveys would have provided a solution to this problem; however, this is a time-consuming and expensive procedure. In light of the lack of funding to animal charities, paper surveys would have proven even more detrimental to their financial status. Participants were primarily from Nicosia (51%), and educational levels were distributed fairly evenly. Approximately 27% had completed secondary education, 42% had completed up to college/ university level and 31% had completed their Masters/PhD. The high numbers of participants with a Masters or PhD serves to debunk the common conception in Cyprus that only older individuals, and consequently, those with lesser education, take an interest in animals. Originally, the C. V. A. did not include a question on the Church. When I asked why, I was informed by the President that everyone knew the Church was not interested in animals. Rather than challenge this view I asked if they would consider adding questions relating to the Church to their survey. After deliberation, they agreed to do so and added the following question:5 Do you feel that the Orthodox Church of Cyprus cares about animal protection and welfare?

Graph 5-2 below illustrates the percentage answers to that question. 6

 5 6

I was not involved in the selection of that question. Style adapted from original pie chart.

136

Chapter Five

C.V.A  ǯ 

Graph 5-2 C. V. A. Question on the Eastern Orthodox Church (2011)

The response suggests the vast majority of the participants (72.3%) believed the Eastern Orthodox Church did not care about animal protection, with the next highest percentage (17.2%) being undecided. The following is an extract of the C. V. A. President’s summary comment: The church on the other hand has to view the results of this survey seriously. The fact that the majority of citizens feel that the church is not interested in animals is not in their favour. All animals are the creation of God and they must be treated as such. They must live in suitable conditions and [be] treated with compassion. As Animal Welfare Societies we are repeatedly asked, why church does not out rightly condemn the fact that thousands of pet animals are poisoned every year, usually by the hand of God-fearing citizens. Is this act not a sin? Shouldn’t the church be the first to condemn it?

Comments on “God-fearing citizens”, the “sin” involved in such practices and the repeated questions as to why the Church remains silent on poisoning, are indications not only that some of those involved in this survey believe in God, but also suggests that many expect the Eastern Orthodox Church to play a role in preventing animal suffering. There is support in the Eastern Orthodox Church for the C. V. A.’s position of a link between animal abuse and sin.7 Met. Kallistos speaks to the point:



7 Bartholomew proclaimed the misuse of animals as a sin at the Aegean Symposium (1995) Religion, Science and the Environment, available at

Cyprus Case Study

137

Until recently the normal view would be that sin is only what we do to other people but at Patmos it was stated very clearly, what you do to the animals, to the trees, to the air, earth, the water-if you misuse them, this too is sinful.8

As noted, teachings on the sin of animal abuse are of enormous significance for the animal suffering theme. There have been regular articles over many years in the Cypriot media on the indiscriminate and deliberate poisoning of animals and other types of abuse and so it would be difficult for the Cypriot Church to claim ignorance of the problem for its lack of engagement on this and other related issues. 9 Fig. 5-1 illustrates the suffering involved in the use of poison and is included as an example of the stark reality for thousands of animals who have been and still are, poisoned each year in Cyprus. 10 Whilst I do not suggest that this practice would stop if the Eastern Orthodox Church were to condemn such activity, I submit that it is likely at the very least to focus people’s attention on the sin involved. This is likely to be more effective in countries where the Eastern Orthodox Church has significance influence on local populations. An important question to ask here is why the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church remain silent on this common practice.

 http://www.rsesymposia.org. 8 Kallistos’s comments at the same Aegean conference are available on The Green Patriarch DVD, available at: http://www.becketfilms.com. 9 Cyprus is not alone in the use of poisons and it is likely that other sections of the Eastern Orthodox Church are also aware of this practice. 10 There is widespread use of Larnate poison in Cyprus even though it is a banned substance throughout the EU.

138

Chapter Five

Fig. 5-1 Photograph of poisoned Dog, Cyprus 11

Part One Summary The results of the C. V. A. survey indicate that the participants believed the Eastern Orthodox Church in Cyprus was indifferent to the suffering of animals and unconcerned with their protection. The comments of the C. V. A. President also suggest the Church was reluctant to discuss the abuse with the animal protection agencies. The outcomes of the C. V. A. research help us better understand the situation at pastoral level and indicates a degree of support for the suggestion of a gap between the theory and the practice of the Church. It also gives an indication of the negative implications for the Eastern Orthodox Church by this lack of engagement with this important subject.

 11

The dark area around the head of the dog is blood caused by internal bleeding.

Cyprus Case Study

139

Part Two 2012 Research: Animal Protectionist Questionnaire In order to explore this complex dynamic still further, I decided to use a Practical Theology methodology by selecting a purposive target group the experts on animal protection on the island. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on their perception of the Eastern Orthodox Church’s involvement in the animal suffering and protection themes. Such an approach allows us to identify potential problems at various levels of Church administration. 12 I chose to use a mixed-method questionnaire rather than interview, as questionnaires reduce the possibility of bias. I restricted the survey group to those organizations actively involved in animal protection in the belief that whilst the numbers would be smaller, the data was likely to be more reliable. I was contacted by a number of individuals who wanted to participate in the survey, which required minor changes to the first few quantitive questions. Organizations were asked to discuss the questions between their governing bodies and give their collective view, whilst the individuals who participated gave personal opinions. I was offered the opportunity of placing the questionnaire on the organizations’ websites and Facebook pages, which would have undoubtedly accrued larger numbers. I declined the offers, preferring to restrict the questionnaire to the governing bodies so that I could, as far as possible, gauge the opinion of those actively engaged in animal protection work, rather than those who might have less knowledge as a result of their supporter role. This inevitably reduced the sample size of the survey however, I believe the data is more reliable as a result of this restriction.

Mixed-Method Questionnaire Participation Statistics The questionnaire covered the majority of animal protection organisations on the island at that time. As such, they give an indication or snapshot of the perceptions of those organisations participating, as many of the comments were consistent across the groups. The organisations identified represented 100% of the target group, i.e., all the Animal Protection organisations on the island at that time. The individuals are included in the statistics, though represented as a separate group. The groups ranged across the island, though not in the Turkish occupied territories. I identified both Cypriot and non-Cypriot participation from the

 12

Swinton, & Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, 205.

Chapter Five

140

comments made in the questionnaires. The percentages of participants in each group are given in Table 5-1 below. Thirteen organisations were identified and thirteen responded; nine completed the questionnaire. Eight individuals contacted me and five completed the questionnaire. Two reasons for non-participation are as follows: Ɣ Not wishing to give an opinion on the theme. Ɣ Not wanting problems from the Church. The second reason suggests there would be negative repercussions for organisations that participated in the survey and of itself suggests the need for further investigation. The table below indicates participation statistics. Table 5-1 Mixed-Method Questionnaire Participation Statistics (2012) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

69.23% 62%

0% Organisations identified

Organisations participating

Individuals identified

Individuals participating

Sample Questions I begin the analyses with two questions from the questionnaire, which closely align with the 2011 C. V. A. research question, in order to aid comparison: Q. 1 In your opinion, is the suffering of animals, something the Orthodox Church should be concerned with? Question One received a 100% positive response. All participants believed the Eastern Orthodox Church should be concerned with animal suffering. Question Two however, received an almost completely opposite response:

Cyprus Case Study

141

Q. 2 In your opinion, is the suffering of animals, something the Orthodox Church is concerned with?





ǯ

Graph 5-3 Question 2 (2012)

85.7% answered No, with only 7% answering yes and Don’t Know. The results indicate that a substantial majority believed that the Eastern Orthodox Church should be concerned with animal suffering but are not concerned. These results align with the C. V. A. results in 2011. Whilst I cannot state that these results prove something we had not previously known13 they are helpful in establishing what is happening at both senior and pastoral level in Cyprus.14 It is important to acknowledge that it is entirely possible that what is occurring in Cyprus is also happening elsewhere in the Eastern Orthodox world and perhaps for the same reasons. I would therefore agree with the C. V. A. President’s comments that the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church should be concerned that many believe it to be indifferent to the suffering of a large portion of God’s creation.



13 The review of Eastern Orthodox literature establishes the lack of engagement by Eastern Orthodox theologians and academics. 14 It is unlikely that Cyprus is the only place evidencing these disconnects but further research would need to be undertaken in other countries to investigate this possibility.

142

Chapter Five

Participant Comments Some of the participants’ replies indicate that problems exist in the relationship between the Eastern Orthodox Church, with some groups either not participating or refusing to answer some of the questions for fear of recognition. 15 We might reasonably conclude therefore that several organisations were concerned about a negative reaction from the Eastern Orthodox Church. 16 Such comments again indicate either poor or nonexistent relationships with the Church. We also find replies, which indicate a lack of compassion on behalf of those who allegedly represented the Eastern Orthodox Church. As verification in research is important, the mother in the funeral incident was contacted and documentary evidence confirms this incident took place.17 The mother (an Eastern Orthodox Cypriot) also comments that the journalist had “ridiculed the local priest” who had refused to return the money. This would again indicate that the Church has received negative publicity because of the incident. One question to ask here is why the women from the Church were so hostile to donations to the mother’s animal charity. One answer is that it is custom and practice in Cyprus to give donations to the Church but even so, it seems extraordinary that such behaviour should occur at the son’s funeral. The mother refers elsewhere to a copy of a letter sent to the Mitropolitis Kition, Larnaca, [the Archbishop] and comments: “Needless to say he did not reply.” This too indicates past experience of a lack of response or engagement from Church leaders. The refusal by some priests to engage with the subject of animal suffering appears to support this lack of engagement. One wonders what would prevent them from denouncing cruel practices that are contrary to the Image of God and illegal in secular law. Whilst priests as individuals might ignore the subject of poisoning as many other individuals on the island do, it is a very different situation to that described above where local people have specifically asked their local priests to engage with the subject and where each priest has refused to do so. Such refusals indicate not only a lack of engagement at pastoral level but also provide further evidence of a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice which arguably, is contributing to further damaging perceptions of the Church via its priests’ lack of engagement.

 15

See Appendix A. Some comments identify specific bishops or priests and in order to protect their anonymity, this information is not included. 17 See Appendix A for newspaper articles covering the event. 16

Cyprus Case Study

143

A senior Eastern Orthodox theologian suggests that priests do not have the authority to make such a statement because there is no doctrine on this subject. If this is the case, it would appear there is an urgent need to address this void, for not only are the animals continuing to suffer, so too is the reputation of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The problem with the Abbot’s argument is that there is very little doctrine in the Eastern Orthodox Church and if we accept his premise, priests would be unable to discuss many other contemporary issues. This would give credence to those who believe the Church is irrelevant to modern society. The counterargument is that the priest as Icon of Christ, has the authority to denounce any actions that cause suffering to any of God’s creatures. Bishop Isaias’s guidance that individuals should ask themselves in any given situation, what Christ would do and then follow that course of action, supports this argument.18 The question arising is, do we believe Christ would refuse to denounce the poisoning of cats and dogs? Whilst a lack of doctrine might indeed be an element in the priests’ refusal to speak out against poisoning, there is also the possibility of indifference for creatures who many see as irrelevant to their mission to save human souls. My focus on the soteriological implications for humanity will, I hope, give rise to a review of such opinions. Regardless of the reason, the participants’ replies reveal further evidence of a lack of engagement by Eastern Orthodox Church representatives across the island and a lack of respect for the Church/clergy as a result. I must admit to being shocked at the accusation that some priests poison cats and dogs, though I am aware of past problems. 19 Bishop Isaias’s advice regarding whether or not Christ would poison His creatures would again be relevant here. Referring back to Chapter Four and the section on hunting and Canonical Law, we found that priests were to be deposed if they attended or participated in horse racing or hunting. A similar argument is possible for the poisoning of animals. Surely, it is equally unacceptable behaviour for priests, who are the prime examples of the Image of God and ‘Priest of Creation’ in this world? Despite my desire not to go near the toxic subject of animal souls, other comments meant that I could no longer avoid doing so. Considering

 18

The bishop gives authority to quote him on this point. Whilst establishing an Orthodox community in the Seychelles in 2007, I received an email informing me of a priest who had almost beaten a dog to death because he found it taking shelter in the graveyard. The priest was prosecuted, fined and remains a priest. See, Cyprus Mail, 1st Aug 2008, https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Priest+fined+for+beating+puppy.-a0182058122 .

19

144

Chapter Five

the detrimental consequences to animals of this topic, it is worth repeating them here: Recently the local Church in [x]20 sent a religious instructor to the local school and told the children that animals have no souls so it is not a problem if you treat them badly. Our friend’s son came home in tears to his Orthodox Cypriot father and Catholic [non-Cypriot] mother, as his family has lots of pets.

It appears that someone with authority taught this ‘Orthodox’ belief to the children and it is clear how the comments affected that particular child; one can only surmise at the effect this ‘teaching’ had on the other children in this class. Whilst the linking of the acceptance of animal cruelty with the status of an animal’s soul is not Eastern Orthodox belief, the ‘religious instructor’ allegedly taught that this was the case. This is not an isolated case for another group from a different area of Cyprus expressed a similar view: In Cyprus especially, we are told that the Orthodox Church teaches people that because animals do not have souls then they cannot feel pain and cannot ‘suffer’ like humans. If this is not true then the Church needs to publicize what it really believes.

In addition to the suggestion that animals do not have souls, the Eastern Orthodox Church is alleged to link the status of an animal soul with an animal’s inability to feel pain and “suffer like humans.” Thus, the linking of animal souls or lack of souls to inhumane treatment of animals is evident. Whilst this is not Eastern Orthodox teaching, it is perceived as being so. Unfortunately, due to the Church’s lack of engagement, there is clearly a degree of confusion on the issue and is one reason why I broached the subject in the subsequent interviews with the priest and two bishops. 21 Interestingly, comments which link animal souls with an acceptance of cruelty, or the inability to feel pain, may well be relevant for our understanding of why the debate on ‘animal souls’ has continued throughout the centuries. One Orthodox Christian who is also a leading animal welfarist on the island further evidences ignorance of Eastern Orthodox Church teachings in the following comment:

 20

Area removed to protect the identification of the participant. The interview with the priest follows this section. Chapters Six and Seven present the interviews with senior Eastern Orthodox theologians. 21

Cyprus Case Study

145

I do not know of any Orthodox teaching relating to the welfare of animals or animals in general.

Without doubt, the participants’ comments were not favourable to the Eastern Orthodox Church. This provides evidence of the need for clarity and education on the subject. They also provide further evidence of a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice both at senior and pastoral levels.

Participant Suggestions One aspect of a Practical Theology methodology is to give a platform for previously hidden experiences and narratives to come to the fore, which in turn, facilitates the development of a public voice. 22 After expressing their concerns and perceptions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the target group were given the opportunity to make suggestions on the following two points: 1) How the Church might make Orthodox teachings better known to its priests and the public. 2) How the Church might help the animal protectionists in their work. Their comments and suggestions follow sound Christian principles and echo those made by H. A. H. Bartholomew 23 and other contemporary theologians for expanding the education given to Eastern Orthodox priests. This questions suggestions that animal protectionists are acting outside of the traditional biblical and patristic teachings on love, compassion, justice and mercy for all of God’s creatures, yet the following is a typical accusation: These women! They have too much time on their hands and so they busy themselves with animals. Tell me this Christina, why do they not care for humans? 24

 22

Swinton & Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, 33. Bartholomew, “Exhortations to Clergy and Faithful of the Ecumenical Throne,” 29th August 1998. In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 137. 24 When asked if he had ever spoken to one of “these women” he states that he had not done so. Further examples of negative comments are made even by some who seem supportive of this theme, for example in Bartholomew, “On the Day of the Protection of the Environment,” 2011; Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation; Harakas, “Ecological Reflections on Contemporary Orthodox Thought in Greece.” 23

146

Chapter Five

Linking concern for animals with indifference to human suffering is a common myth; I have heard it many times, in many countries and over many years. Social Science research on this point indicates that these accusations are without substance.25

Part Two Summary The protectionists’ comments are analysed to see how or if the posited theory has transferred to the praxis, the reality of daily life. This appears not to be the case for Cyprus at least, for the Eastern Orthodox Church is seen as uncaring and indifferent to the suffering of animals. The 2012 research seems to provide further evidence of a gap between Orthodox theory and practice at various levels of Church administration and supports the findings of the C. V. A.’s 2011 survey. There also appeared to be ignorance of the Eastern Orthodox Church’s views relating to animals and their treatment. This indicates a need for clarity on the Eastern Orthodox Church’s position on several aspects of this subject. If my argument that the Eastern Orthodox Church has a tradition, which incorporates loving and compassionate treatment of animals, is accepted, then there appears to be an urgent need for the Eastern Orthodox Church to ensure that its teachings are known and practised at every level. Some important questions arising from these findings are as follows: How is it that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has a wealth of texts and liturgical expressions of compassion for God’s creation, is perceived as being indifferent to the suffering of a major part of that creation? Is it ignorance in the Church of Orthodox teachings on the subject? If so, how is this to be addressed? Is there knowledge but lack of transference or application of this knowledge to the priest’s role or to their parishioners’ behaviour? If so, how is this to be addressed? Should all clergy attend courses on the compassionate and ethical treatment of animals and the environment as part of their seminary or in-service training? Are these courses available? If not, who will establish the courses?26 An animal soul is linked to the acceptance of cruelty to animals. How is this to be addressed? Does an animal’s supposed irrationality make its suffering irrelevant to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Does irrationality account for or have relevance to, the difference between theory and practice in the Orthodox Church in Cyprus? If so, how is this to be overcome?

 25 26

See Chapter Eight. See Appendix B for a framework for such a course.

Cyprus Case Study

147

I have previously noted the recognition that the early Church accepted the ancient Greek tripartite framework of souls and the flawed science, which categorised animals as irrational due to the teachings that they did not possess language and thus the capacity to think. Today we recognise that such assumptions are the equivalent to the theory of a ‘flat earth’. Had the Church based some of its theology upon the earth being flat, we would expect the leaders of the contemporary Church to review those teachings.27 Should we not therefore, expect to apply the same standard to teachings relating to animal irrationality? This is not the only flawed philosophical influence to manifest in our religion and the misuse of Christianity by those with vested interests in promoting the right to enslave peoples, to promote the apartheid system, to subjugate women to a form of possession and the mistranslation of dominion to justify domination of the earth and animals are prime examples. The leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have denounced such views in relation to the environment. What do we say regarding the rationality of animals? Contemporary scientific investigations have established that many species have language, intelligence, rational thought, self-awareness, creativity, use of tools, loving family units and the capacity to feel physical pain and experience psychological suffering. In essence, any difference is a matter of degree rather than absence. This raises significant questions regarding theological teachings arising from the flawed science and premise that animals are without these capacities.28 Questions arising here are how is this to be addressed in the Eastern Orthodox Church and by whom? Lack of clarity raises further questions regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church’s position on many aspects of the animal suffering theme. Who will give this clarification? Finally, do we believe what is taking place in Cyprus is unique in the Eastern Orthodox world? Thus far, the research has revealed several important problems to be addressed and questions to be answered. There was however, one ‘voice’ missing in the complex dynamic of Church and Society in Cyprus. The problem at this point was how I might research the view of what appeared to be the unresponsive Eastern Orthodox Church in Cyprus. I approached an experienced Cypriot priest that was known to me. His ‘voice’ was the beginning of another aspect of this investigation and helped frame the questions for more senior and authoritative members of the Orthodox Church. His interview is discussed in the following section.

 27

A classic example here would be Copernicus’s rejection of Ptolemaic and Aristotelian physics. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus. 28 See Chapter Nine for further discussion.

148

Chapter Five

Part Three 2013 Research: A Priest’s Response In 2013, I presented the priest with the results of the 2011 & 2012 research. After our initial discussion, he professed a willingness to participate in a formal interview in order to respond to the criticisms. He was at that time undecided as to whether he would remain anonymous and later decided that he would reveal his identity. However, I have decided to keep his anonymity and refer to him throughout as Fr. S. It is important to note that Fr S expressed a personal opinion although he believed it reflected that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is obviously important to avoid imposition or supposition of knowledge and to avoid errors in the collection of data. In order to avoid these problems, we record the interview and a transcription is made. This is subsequently presented to Fr. S to verify or change. Whilst this presents practical problems of time and energy, it allows ownership of the knowledge to reside more formally with the participant. 29 He approved the transcript and added one additional word to Question 11, which is shown in brackets.

Interview Q. 1 In both the 2011 and 2012 research, the Church is perceived as not caring about the welfare of animals in Cyprus. Do you believe this reflects the Church’s position and if not, could you clarify its position? Fr. S. Response: This does not reflect the Church’s position. The Church does care about all of God’s creation and as such is concerned about the welfare of animals for they are God’s creatures. Our main focus is the people, for we were commanded by Jesus at Pentecost to “take the good news to all nations”. Q. 2 As a result of a series of poisonings of animals, local priests were visited by animal welfare representatives who asked them to consider reminding their parishioners that all animals are God’s creatures and the poisoning of dogs and cats is wrong. The priests refused to do so. Do you see this refusal as a reasonable response to the requests?

 29

Swinton & Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, 214.

Cyprus Case Study

149

Fr. S. Response: The Church’s position is very clear – the Church does not agree with or condone the poisoning of animals. I can see no reason why the priests would refuse such requests. Q. 3 The Orthodox Church in Cyprus is perceived as not caring about the poisoning of animals in Cyprus. Do you believe this reflects the Church’s position and if not, could you clarify its position? Fr. S. Response: No, this does not reflect the Church’s position, as I have said above. Poisoning is not the way to dispose of unwanted animals because I understand that it must be a very painful death. The Church would encourage owners to take their animals to the veterinarian so that it may be euthanized in a humane way. Q. 4 It has been suggested that priests in a number of villages poison cats and dogs. Is this acceptable practice for clergy in the Orthodox Church in Cyprus? Fr. S. Response: I do not believe this is true. If there is evidence, then let this evidence be taken to the local Bishop. This would certainly not be acceptable behaviour for any person and especially a priest. Q. 5 Does this behaviour [poisoning of animals] reflect the Church’s expectations of the priest as an ‘icon of Christ’ and/or ‘Priest of Creation’? Fr. S. Response: As I have said, I would not accept this as true unless evidence can be produced. Certainly, this is not acceptable behaviour for anyone and this includes priests. Q. 6 Could you clarify the procedure for making a complaint concerning a priest? Fr. S. Response: The person or persons must take their evidence to the local Bishop. Q. 7 The Orthodox Church is perceived as teaching that animals do not have souls and as such, we should not be concerned with soulless things. Do you believe this reflects the Church’s position and if not, could you clarify its position? Fr. S. Response: No, this is not the position of the Church. The status of an animal’s soul should have nothing to do with the way it should be treated. Animals, as part of God’s creation, belong to God. They should be treated with kindness and compassion and this is the teaching from the earliest times of the Church.

150

Chapter Five

Q. 8 The Orthodox Church is perceived as teaching that as a result of animals not having souls, they do not feel pain and do not suffer. Do you believe this reflects the Church’s position and if not, could you clarify its position? Fr. S. Response: This is not the position of the Church. Of course, animals feel pain. It is nonsense to say they do not. The question of an animal’s soul is quite separate to the way they should be treated or the fact that they feel pain. Q. 9 It has been suggested that a representative of the Orthodox Church has entered a school teaching that animals have no souls so it is not a problem if animals are treated badly. Do you believe this reflects the Church’s position and if not, could you clarify its position? Fr. S. Response: I find it hard to believe anyone would say such a thing and certainly a Church representative. This is not the position of the Church as I have said in my answers to other questions. The Church does not accept cruel or bad treatment of animals. Q. 10 The neutering of animals is the practice of Animal Welfare Organisations throughout the world. It is used to reduce the number of unwanted animals and for health reasons in later life. It has been suggested that the Orthodox Church forbids this procedure. Do you believe this reflects the Church’s position and if not, could you clarify its position? Fr. S. Response: This again is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We encourage people to have their animals neutered for there are too many animals. Every few months more and more kittens or puppies are born and the people cannot keep them. We do not condone the abandonment of an animal if the owner cannot look after it/keep it or its offspring and we do not condone poisoning of animals for any reason. I have seen abandoned dogs that are so very thin and this is not the way to deal with unwanted animals. We would encourage people to take unwanted animals to a veterinarian where the animal would be humanely euthanized. To abandon an animal, particularly dogs, is wrong because the dogs cannot take care of themselves and eventually starve to death and this is not the way to treat God’s creatures. Q. 11 The Church is perceived as: a) not wanting to engage with animal welfare representatives who have written to bishops or

Cyprus Case Study

151

priests but received no replies. b) Is not concerned about animals. Do you believe this reflects the Church’s position and if not, could you clarify its position? Fr. S. Response: I cannot say why they have not received a reply. I would advise anyone who finds themselves in this position to go and see the person they have written to. It must be remembered that the role of the Church is “to spread the good news to all nations.” Our priority is to care for the people first and this is the focus of our attention. That is not to say that we are uncaring of the rest of creation for it is our duty to care for it on behalf of the Creator. So, to the people I would say- humans are our priority but if we have some more (spare) time, let us not hesitate to help those caring also for the animals, who are also God’s creatures. Q. 12 In answer to the question, “Does your organisation have a relationship with the Orthodox Church in Cyprus”, 100% of Animal Welfare workers said “No.” Do you believe the Church could be persuaded to have a Church representative who would liaise with Animal Welfare groups, or be part of a working/liaison group concerned with animal welfare? Fr. S. Response: I do not know if this is possible. Certainly, the Church in these difficult times is stretched. Other, higher Church officials might be able to answer this. I now present an analysis of the major points made and conclude with a comparison of both the priest and protectionists’ comments.

Analysis Fr. S is initially presented with the protectionists’ suggestion that the Eastern Orthodox Church in Cyprus did not care about the welfare of animals and asked if he believed this reflected the Church’s position. He was also asked to clarify its position if this were not the case. He rejected the criticism, stating that the Eastern Orthodox Church did care about all of God’s creation, including the welfare of animals. He added that whilst the main focus of the Church is the human creature because of Christ’s command at Pentecost to “spread the good news to all nations” he expressed the view that this did not detract from the acknowledgement that all of God’s creatures are to be protected from harm. His statements outline a positive overarching backdrop to this subject and are to be welcomed.

152

Chapter Five

In answer to Questions 2-5, Fr. S proffers the opinion that the poisoning of animals is unacceptable behaviour for any person and especially so for a priest. The condemnation of this common practice indicates that it is against the teachings of the Church. He also acknowledges the suffering of animals. To Fr. S and many others, it seems obvious that animals suffer physically and psychologically. There is a considerable corpus of scientific research on the capacity of both vertebrate and invertebrate animals to suffer, though he does not disclose knowledge of that material. In soteriological terms, we might see Fr. S’s comments as reflecting the catechetical teachings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who defines hunting and horse racing as examples of the “pomp of the devil.”30 Questions 7-9 relate to animals’ souls and suffering. His responses to the allegations that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that we should not concern ourselves with animals because they do not have souls, are of great significance. He rejects the allegations. In so doing, he brings an anamnesis of the early tradition previously outlined in earlier chapters and buttresses arguments, which challenge the damaging influence on theology, by aspects of early Greek philosophy. As such, they are worth repeating: No, this is not the position of the Church. The status of an animal’s soul should have nothing to do with the way it should be treated. Animals, as part of God’s creation, belong to God. They should be treated with kindness and compassion and this is the teaching from the earliest times of the Church.

This teaching alone cuts through the centuries-old philosophical arguments on animal rationality and the accompanying arguments on who is to receive justice, mercy and rights. He substitutes those arguments with traditional biblical and patristic teachings where love for “all things” is the supreme determining factor of our role as Icon of Christ. His teaching is clear; we are to treat animals with kindness and compassion, regardless of the status of their souls. If senior Eastern Orthodox theologians affirm his teaching it would be a critically important teaching for any theological discussions on the subject of animal suffering. His second teaching on souls relates to the allegation that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that animals do not feel pain:

 30

See BirdLife Cyprus short article on illegal hunting and poisoning of birds https://birdlifecyprus.org/news-details/conservation-science/birds-of-prey-fallingvictims-to-reckless-behaviours.

Cyprus Case Study

153

Of course, animals feel pain. It is nonsense to say they do not. The question of an animal’s soul is quite separate to the way they should be treated or the fact that they feel pain.

Again, we have clarity: “It is nonsense” to say animals do not feel pain. Fr. S’s response aligns with modern scientific research on this point. It also reflects the views of many contemporary theologians and ethicists who acknowledge and link the flawed teachings of certain philosophers with the detrimental effects upon animals and the environment. Met. John Zizioulas (1989) acknowledges the strong negative influence of Platonic gnostic dualism on the perception of the material world, which he suggests further developed in the West via Augustine and Boethius. Because of this, theologians and philosophers like Aquinas, Kant and Descartes denied animals any intrinsic value, justice or mercy31 and importantly, denied that animals had the capacity to feel pain. This is I believe, the crux of why the subject of animal souls remains an issue until today. I doubt if most people care whether animals have souls or not, the problem lies in linking souls to the capacity to feel pain or to think. If we take souls out of the equation, we are clearly able to determine that animals can and do communicate and think and can and do suffer pain, fear and distress. Unfortunately, rationality and eternal souls continue to muddy the waters. Animals continue to be viewed as property, units of production and ‘disposal life’ to be used in laboratories, rather than as sentient beings who are loved by God. As a result, they receive all manner of abuse and exploitation. 32 Moving now to the subject of lack of engagement, Fr. S does not give an answer as to why the Church in Cyprus does not engage with animal protection representatives but suggests they take their concerns to the Bishop rather than write. Whilst reiterating the point that the Church’s main concern is for the human creature, he makes an important point on engagement when reiterating early Church teachings: That is not to say that we are uncaring of the rest of creation for it is our duty to care for it on behalf of the Creator. So, to the people I would sayhumans are our priority but if we have some more (spare) time, let us not



31 See Linzey and Linzey, The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments for a summary of this lineage and outcome for animals, especially sections 5:22-27 & 13-15. Whilst some of these philosophers and theologians did not always use concepts such as reason and intellect in the same way we use them today, there is sufficient evidence in Chapter Two to establish that they also used them in the modern context, thus warranting the criticisms. 32 I return to this in Chapter Nine.

154

Chapter Five hesitate to help those caring also for the animals, who are also God’s creatures.

This is another critical teaching. Whilst humans are the main focus of the Eastern Orthodox Church, they should not be its only focus. Finally, Question 10 links to the above through its discussion on the problem of unwanted animals. I mention it because it is one of the most intractable problems for animal protectionists across the world who frequently hears the excuse that ‘the Church’ forbids neutering. His teaching that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not prohibit the neutering of animals gives urgently needed clarity to challenge such a view. However, whilst Fr. S reveals an empathy with the plight of abandoned animals he also reveals his ignorance of the complexity of the problem, for many vets refuse to kill healthy animals. Many animals are abandoned or killed as a result. I have indicated in Table 5-2 below if Fr. S’s answers agree or disagree with the criticisms made by the animal protectionists. I then indicate if his responses result in a negative or positive outcome.

Table 5-2 Results Table of Priest’s Comments (2013)

Cyprus Case Study

155

It is interesting to note that in rejecting the negative comments made by the Cypriot public and animal protectionists, Fr. S gives an entirely positive response and one that purports to represent the Eastern Orthodox Church’s position on the problems raised in the 2011 & 2012 research. It is equally interesting to note that upon further analysis, it is clear that his views are very similar to those of the animal protectionists. That neither knew of the other’s opinion is I suggest, entirely due to the lack of engagement by the Eastern Orthodox Church with the animal protection organisations on the island.

Part Three Summary Whilst Fr. S’s comments are his personal opinion, they are nonetheless, important both as an entry into the mind of the modern Eastern Orthodox Church and as contributions and clarifications for the debate on animal suffering. We see a positive declaration that the Orthodox Church is concerned about the welfare and protection of animals. 33 Kindness and compassion for animals is a tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church34 and cruel or abusive treatment of animals is unacceptable behaviour.35 There is a positive response regarding the poisoning of animals, with confirmation that the Eastern Orthodox Church is against a practice, which he acknowledges is a very painful death. Whilst there is surprise at other priest’s refusal to teach on or denounce the practice, there is also a blanket refusal to believe the allegations that some priests poison animals. I am unsure as to the significance of his lack of comment on the priests’ alleged behaviour in the context of their role as an ‘Icon of Christ’ or ‘Priest of Creation’. It could be that I failed to press the point or indeed remind him of it after he had finished commenting on another point; nonetheless, he does reiterate that the poisoning of an animal is unacceptable behaviour.36 Whilst some priests may have refused to teach on the poisoning of animals, Fr. S’s comment indicates that not all priests follow their example, for he is clear that poisoning is unacceptable behaviour for anyone and especially so for a priest. Fr. S does accept the possibility of priestly ‘bad behaviour’ and provides guidance of the procedure should there be evidence against a

 33

Q. 1. Q. 7. 35 Q. 9. 36 Q. 5. 34

156

Chapter Five

particular priest. 37 Note that he advices the complainant to “take” the evidence to the local bishop, for as it has been indicated in Cyprus at least, that it is unlikely that the clergy will respond to written approaches. He also gives a clue to their lack of response in his statement on the priority of humans.38 This separation of humans from the rest of creation is identified as a problem in modern Eastern Orthodox commentary on the environment and my studies indicate that this is also evident regarding the subject of animal suffering. There are many reasons for this, the most obvious being the detrimental influence of early Greek and later European philosophers and theologians. It is interesting to note Fr. S’s uses the personal pronoun ‘who’ when referring to animals. This aligns with some animal protectionists/ethicists who refuse to use ‘it’ when referring to non-human animals. The reason given is that ‘it’ indicates an object rather than a living being and is an excellent example of the continued, though subtle, separation of the human from the rest of God’s creation.39 The question on neutering receives a detailed response, containing important teachings for this worldwide problem. There are many owners (not just in Cyprus), who state that the Church forbids neutering in order to justify not having their animals neutered. In rejecting this accusation, he endorses the teaching of animal protection experts around the world. Whilst it is important that Fr. S encourage people to have their animals euthanized at the veterinary clinics rather than poisoning or abandoning them, he does reveal ignorance on how difficult this suggestion is in reality. He appears to be unaware that many vets refuse to kill healthy animals, which leaves the owners with difficult choices and one reason why large numbers of animals are poisoned or abandoned. He differentiates between cats and dogs explaining that cats are natural hunters who can “fend for themselves” whereas dogs cannot easily do so and is why dogs suffer so much when they are abandoned. Whilst this might be the case for some cats, it is certainly not the case for all, especially kittens. It ignores the suffering involved and draws us back to the point on the futility of relativizing suffering. That he was aware of the suffering of abandoned animals is nonetheless a welcome counterpoint to many damaging teachings of the past. He states that he had seen starving dogs, yet there is no mention of action to reduce their suffering.

 37

Q. 6. Q. 1 & 11. 39 Linzey would be a good example here, together with those who write in the Journal of Animal Ethics, University of Illinois Press. I include myself in this group. 38

Cyprus Case Study

157

One of the most worrying aspects of this research for me was the linking of an animal’s soul with their capacity to feel pain and suffer and/or that the type of soul determined the treatment given to them. Fr. S expresses disbelief at the teaching of an Eastern Orthodox Church representative. He is clear that animals feel pain and that an animal’s soul is irrelevant to the way animals are treated. These are crucial teachings and stand in direct opposition to the stance taken by many philosophers and theologians, ancient and modern, who cling to the discredited science and thought of Aristotle and Plato. Importantly, even within the highly contentious arena of animal souls we again find his teachings align with the view of the animal protectionists: regardless of the status of their souls, we should treat animals with loving kindness and compassion. This is important because when discussing animal suffering with Orthodox clergy and laity they have a tendency to state that animals do not have souls, regardless of the fact that the subject had not arisen in our discussions. Fr. S’s comments align with the view outlined in the previous chapters that we as Image should love and care for animals. If the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church affirm and promote Fr. S’s teaching on souls, it would be a significant step in reducing animal suffering in this world. At this point, whilst I had obtained clarification of the Easter Orthodox Church’s position on many issues, it was nonetheless an opinion of one priest. The next stage was to seek confirmation that his comments comply with Eastern Orthodox teachings. This is addressed in Chapters Six and Seven.

Chapter Five Summary The Cyprus Case Study provides empirical evidence of a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice. It also establishes that little appears to divide the Cypriot Orthodox Church and the animal protection organisations on many aspects of the animal protection and suffering themes. I offer some examples of their unity: x The status of an animal’s soul should have nothing to do with how animals are treated. x Cruelty to animals is not acceptable. x There is recognition that animals feel pain and suffer. x We should treat animals with loving kindness and compassion. x Poisoning and the abandonment of animals is unacceptable behaviour. x The neutering of animals is to be encouraged.

158

Chapter Five

The question that begs asking here is why we appear to have a lack of engagement and evidence of hostility between these two groups, when they appear to agree on many important animal suffering and protection issues. I suggest the following possibilities: x Lack of communication/response from the Eastern Orthodox Church contributes to ignorance of animal protectionist’s views on the themes discussed in this research and vice versa. x Historical anthropocentric separationist theology may play a part. x Protectionists are perceived as indifferent to the suffering of humans. x Some may link animal protectionists with those in the ‘animal liberation’ movement. It is interesting to note that despite the hostility of the priest’s initial response, after a lengthy discussion on the theme Fr. S seemed much happier with the entire concept of people wishing to help animals. This would suggest that along with an increase in communication, education for priests on the subject is likely to result in not only greater understanding but also a willingness to engage with those whose aim is to limit/prevent the suffering of animals. If we wish the negative public opinion of the Eastern Orthodox Church to change, we need to ensure that its teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church are better known. This will require engagement on the subject by senior Orthodox theologians. This produces further questions: x How is the clergy to become better educated on these subjects? x Who will give them training? x How will engagement between the two parties begin? This interview provides further clarity and material for use in establishing an Eastern Orthodox position on animal suffering. The next stage was to seek confirmation that the priest’s comments complied with Eastern Orthodox teachings. In 2014, I asked three senior theologians to confirm the priest’s comments - two responded: Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia and Thyateira (Ware) and Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis, in Cyprus. The former is now quite elderly whilst the other is relatively young and I wondered if the age difference would result in differences of opinions. This, as we shall see, was not evident. Both confirmed the priest’s comments as entirely Orthodox. Because of their involvement, both offer interviews on the subject.

CHAPTER SIX INTERVIEW WITH METROPOLITAN KALLISTOS OF DIOKLEIA

Overview The previous chapter gave an insight into the gap between the posited theory and practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Cyprus. From my knowledge and discussions with other Eastern Orthodox Christians, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that it is likely to be the case in some if not all Eastern Orthodox countries. It also indicated a degree of confusion on Eastern Orthodox teachings on several important aspects of the animal suffering theme. A well-respected and experienced Eastern Orthodox priest and two hierarchs of the Church, who ratified the priest’s comments as entirely Orthodox, address some of this confusion. Both hierarchs later agreed to interviews. This chapter presents the 2014 interview, which took place between Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (Ware) and presbytera Christina (Dr. Christina Nellist) on the 24th February 2014 in Oxford, England, followed by my commentary on the points made.

Interview Presbytera Christina: Firstly Father, may I ask you to comment upon the research I left with you last year. This was the comments made by the Orthodox priest in response to the outcomes of my research in 2012, which examined the opinion of Cypriot animal protectionists on the Orthodox Church in relation to various aspects of the animal theme. Metropolitan Kallistos: Yes, well though I might slightly rephrase what the priest says in one or two areas, in general, there is nothing that he says where I felt “no this is definitely wrong.” So, I can say that he is correct in his statements. I can comment on one or two of his answers but I think some of those points come up in the further questionnaire you sent to me, so rather than comment on his statements I would perhaps make my own statement in due course. The points that we need to discuss, not that I disagree with him, are the questions of

160

Chapter Six

whether animals have souls and of course why the Orthodox that were written to did not to reply. I think one of the reasons may be that they didn’t quite know what to reply. When you get an enquiry and there is not a simple and obvious answer to it, you tend to put it aside and not do anything about it. I think that may well be what has happened here. Firstly, a general comment. It seems to me that a concern for animal welfare is a fairly recent thing in a country like Britain. Of course, in the Tradition and in the Old Testament you have saints who have shown real concern for animals but animal welfare organisations specifically are I think a fairly modern thing. So, to me, some of the problems you identify are not so much a theological question, as a cultural one. This subject has been a concern that people have felt in countries like Britain and America for some considerable time but culturally the traditional Orthodox countries have not really caught up with this. It is not that they are taking a different stance but they are more in the situation perhaps that we in the West were in fifty or one hundred years ago. Probably in the beginning of the 20th century we would not have found much in the way of animal welfare organisations even in the West, I may be wrong there but I see it more as a cultural and sociological thing rather than theological but that is a matter for discussion. Presbytera Christina: It was not my writing to the Church; this was the general theme that came out in the Cyprus research. Many people had written to priests and bishops and had not received any response. Met. Kallistos: I think we have to admit that this is not a priority in the minds of most bishops and priests and they might say we are concerned with humans and to that my answer is “it is not a matter of either /or, you should be concerned with humans and animals.” The one does not exclude the other. Now of course my experience is limited, as I have always had an urban upbringing so I do not know in too much detail what goes on in farming but I have seen some things, which have left me very disturbed. Presbytera Christina: Well I do not eat animal products not because I do not like the taste but because I object to the system which is very cruel and the only thing I can do is choose not to be part of that cruelty. I just hope that over time, the organisations that do focus on farming methods like Compassion in World Farming for example, can change it. Again, methods such as factory farming are rather new and I feel that if more people knew what happened they may well give up eating meat. Of course, it is easy to find out what goes on, there is plenty of visual and written material on the web and in the form of reports and

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

161

research. So perhaps it is more that people do not want to know, rather than not being able to access the information. Met. Kallistos: Well exactly. People who live in towns like me eat the products but do not know too much about the background and I think if I knew more about the background I might feel I might have to become a vegetarian but I am willing to say a bit about that later. Presbytera Christina: Do you believe animal suffering is relevant to God? Met. Kallistos: Yes. Presbytera Christina: In your opinion, is the suffering of animals, something the Orthodox Church should be concerned with? Met. Kallistos: Yes. Presbytera Christina: There appears to be a need for clarification of the Orthodox Church’s position on cruelty to animals. Would you be able to give us a clear statement of the Church’s position? Met. Kallistos: The Orthodox Church to the best of my knowledge has never attempted to make dogmatic statements about this – statements expressed in the form of formal and official Church teaching. The question of animals for example was never a matter discussed at the seven Ecumenical Councils. Yet, a reverence for animals, sensitivity to their position, their suffering, this certainly is part of our Orthodox Church faith. We start from the principle laid down in the first chapter of Genesis – that the world is God’s creation, God saw everything that He had made and behold it was very good – Genesis 1:31. The world is God’s creation and it is a good and beautiful world. Therefore, the question of animals and how we treat them, links up with our view that animals are part of God’s creation and just, as we should treat the whole of creation with reverence and respect, so we should more particularly treat the animals with reverence and respect. Now it is said in the first chapter of Genesis, that humans have a unique position in God’s creation because we are created in the Image and Likeness of God and that is not said of animals; though I would like to pursue that later on in our discussion. Being created in God’s Image and Likeness, gives us a responsibility towards creation as a whole and towards animals in particular. It is said that we are to have dominion as humans over the created order but dominion does not mean domination or ruthless tyranny. This dominion that humans are given is part of being in God’s Image, so what this means is that just as God cares for His creation and loves it, so we, after the Image of God, are to care and love creation. This to me is the basic position of the Orthodox Church in regard to animals.

162

Chapter Six

Presbytera Christina: The Ecumenical Patriarch’s proclamation at Patmos defined the misuse of animals as a sin. In my research, it appears that the Church in Cyprus is reluctant to speak on animal abuse of any kind but particularly in the form of poisoning. Would you give us your opinion on the poisoning of animals in general and in particular as a form of population control for unwanted animals? Met. Kallistos: I was present on Patmos at the time the Ecumenical Patriarch made his proclamation and of course, I fully agree with the affirmation that animals have their own proper dignity, that this is to be respected and therefore the misuse of animals along with the misuse of any part of creation is a sin. William Blake, that great eighteenth century prophet said “Everything that lives is Holy” so the animals are Holy and therefore, the way we treat animals is directly relevant to our living of the Christian life. I would condemn the poisoning of animals. There will be situations where domestic animals do need to be put down because they are diseased or because they are breeding too many and there is not enough land to support them but poisoning would seem to me a cruel way of dealing with this problem. There are ways in which animals can be put to sleep that do not involve a long and painful death. I think that we do have a responsibility sometimes to limit the numbers of domestic animals but not by poisoning. Equally, I suppose we do need to keep down wild animals, which may be preying on our flocks or herds – the wolves on Mount Athos for example were quite a nuisance. Unfortunately, there are now no more wolves there, they have all been disposed of and I regret that but again, poisoning seems to me, an evil way to dispose of animals because it will usually involve a lingering and painful death. There are more humane ways of dealing with the problems. Presbytera Christina: The neutering of animals is the practice of Animal Welfare Organisations throughout the world. It is used to reduce the number of unwanted animals and for health reasons in later life. It has been suggested, that the Orthodox Church forbids this procedure. Does this reflect the Church’s position and if not, could you clarify its position? Met. Kallistos: To my knowledge, the Orthodox Church, has never forbidden the neutering of animals and I consider that used in a responsible way, this is a good method of preventing unwanted animals and that there can be health reasons as well to advocate this practice, so I am not against the neutering of animals. Of course, we do not approve of the neutering of human beings but for animals, I do not think the Orthodox Church has ever forbidden this practice.

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

163

Presbytera Christina: How is it that the Orthodox Church, which has a wealth of texts relating to respect for God’s creation, finds itself in 2011 and 2012 research, is perceived of as being indifferent to the suffering of a major part of God’s creation? Is it ignorance in the clergy of patristic teachings on the subject or is it more likely to be a lack of transference or application of their knowledge, to a priest or parishioner’s behaviour? How are these problems to be addressed? Met. Kallistos: Now that is very true, first of all, the Old Testament is full of regulations that were imposed and adopted by the Jewish people relating to the humane treatment of animals. I call to mind a very good book on this subject not by an Orthodox but by a Roman Catholic, Fr. Robert Murray and his book The Cosmic Covenant where he shows that particularly in the covenant of Noah, the covenant made between God and humans, also involves the animal world. That I believe is the true Christian teaching and I accept that as an Orthodox. Again, if we look at the lives of the saints, there are numerous examples of close friendships between saints and particular animals. I think of the collection of texts well known many years ago, made by Helen Waddell, called Beasts and Saints and the examples she gives are both Eastern and Western, this is not only Orthodox but part of our common heritage. So, from the tradition of the Orthodox Church, we have plenty of examples of close mutual understanding between humans and animals. The trouble is whilst we have all this in theory, we do not sufficiently apply it in practice. Presbytera Christina: How is this to be addressed? Met. Kallistos: There is a need for more education and we are up against the basic problem that all too many people, clergy and laity, think as Christians that this does not matter; that the treatment of animals is not a moral issue. But as soon as you say that animals are part of God’s creation and we humans have a God-given responsibility towards creation, then at once, one sees that it is both a moral and spiritual question. That is why the Ecumenical Patriarch was so right to insist that the misuse of creation is a sin but all too many people do not see it that way. There is a further problem in that people involved in agriculture might feel that the intervention by Christian clergy and others, suggesting humane ways of treating animals would diminish their profits. It would mean that they could not make as much money and that is an argument against organic farming in general. This argument I do not accept. First of all, even if it did diminish your profits, perhaps you should not make evil profit from creation and I think also, that it is

164

Chapter Six

possible to practice organic farming and humane treatment of animals, in a manner that is perfectly viable economically; but I do see there could be objections here. By way of illustrating this point, I remember visiting many years ago, a Roman Catholic monastery, though I will not say where, except that it was in the United States and they took me with great pride, to see a new appliance that they had installed for battery hens. There were thousands of hens in this vast shed, all in tiny cages and subjected to electric light all through the night so that they would lay a larger amount of eggs. Now there it seemed to me, that the desire of a larger profit was leading to an immoral use of living creatures. Animals have their dignity their natural ways of behaving – hens wander about picking up the food they find, picking it up in different places and they should be allowed to do this. I was deeply shocked that a monastery, which should be sensitive to the dignity of creation, should be showing such pleasure in this new installation. Well, their motive was to make profit; however, even if you cannot make quite such big profits, surely humane farming could be economically viable. Presbytera Christina: Can you remember how many birds were in each cage? Normally in factory farming, there would be several hens in one tiny cage. Met. Kallistos: That I do not remember clearly but I noticed how in many cases, the birds had virtually no feathers. I was appalled to see the naked skin of these poor birds and I was deeply shocked that the monks did not seem to see that there was something unchristian, contrary to our faith in the beauty of God’s world, to do such a thing as that. So, to summarise, I think it is a lack of teaching and a lack of spiritual imagination. Presbytera Christina: On that point, I have very poor eyesight and yet I am able to see the suffering of other creatures and what I do not understand is that others do not see it, even when it is pointed out to them. This is why I was so upset at the suggestion that some priests were involved in poisoning animals. As Christians, how could they do that? Met. Kallistos: Well, quite so. Presbytera Christina: Several of my questions relate to the suggestions that because an animal does not have a soul, it does not feel pain or that they are irrelevant or that we should not concern ourselves with them. Would you like to take each point in turn or would you like to cover them in a more general statement?

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

165

Met. Kallistos: I shall cover these points as I make my statements. The idea that animals do not suffer pain, I find that quite extraordinary. The evidence is so clear. Indeed, we cannot see inside the animal’s minds but all the symptoms that humans display when pain is inflicted on them are displayed also by animals. So, we have every reason to believe that animals experience pain as we do and to suggest therefore, that to inflict pain on animals is something morally neutral, I find abhorrent – it is a sin. Presbytera Christina: How do we deal with this sin in the Church? Met. Kallistos: Quiet, persistent teaching but the difficulty is that all too many of the clergy in country districts, in Mediterranean countries particularly, do not see that. Here as Orthodox Christians, we have a marvellous theology for creation but the priests may be afraid to preach about this because such a message would perhaps be unwelcoming to the farmers who are their parishioners. They may be afraid to incur in this way hostility but, and there is an important point to make here, the Church has always been called to take an unpopular line. On the subject of souls, I will refer to a book in which I have previously written on the subject of souls and I did have a specific section on the souls of animals. This is entitled From Soul to Self, edited by James Crabbe, published by Routledge in 1999. On this question, of course it is true, that in much of Christianity - Eastern and Western, there has been a tendency to make a very sharp distinction between human and animals. It is said that animals do not possess reason, more specifically, that they do not have immortal souls. The result of this approach has been that we are in danger of treating animals as objects and not subjects. Now part of the question here, do animals have souls, depends on what you mean by the word soul. The Greek word psyche has a broader understanding perhaps than our modern understanding of the word soul. Aristotle said there are three types of soul: the vegetable soul, the animal soul and the rational soul i.e. the human soul. Now to speak of vegetables having souls would strike some people as facetious and they will make jokes about talking to your tomatoes. Well in fact, there may well be subtle connections between humans and plants. After all, we do describe some people as having green fingers. These people seem to have a natural empathy with growing things and seem to be skilful in making them grow; however, the soul used in this way by Aristotle means ‘life force’. So, from that point of view animals certainly do have a soul because they undoubtedly have a ‘life force’.

166

Chapter Six

However, do they have the same soul as humans? Now many of the characteristics we think of as distinctively human are also found in the animals. In fact, any attempt to make a very sharp delineation in light of modern research into animal behaviour and intelligence, does not entirely work. Do animals have the power of speech, well not exactly as we humans do but animals do make cries and sounds, which communicate messages to the other animals, so they do communicate. There has been much research in this area, I can think specifically of dolphins and they have quite subtle ways of communicating to each other. Indeed, there is so much research now that we cannot say animals are inarticulate for they have all kinds of ways of communicating and this has implications for our view on thought. To say animals do not have reason is also questionable. Again, there is much research in this field. For example, if you put a banana behind a door with a rather complex handle to open the door, if the monkey is interested in it, he will test and experiment with the handle and surely, he is doing something very similar to what we do when we try to think and solve a problem. So, it seems to me that you cannot make a sharp distinction here either. Again, animals show deep attachment to one another. Many animals are in fact monogamous and form unions throughout the whole of their life and we could say that they are better at this than some humans. When an animal loses its partner, it will show signs of bereavement and grief as humans do. Here we can use as an example the research into elephant family groups. So, it is much harder to make a sharp distinction between animals and humans than it once was. Just to say animals have no souls is inadequate, in fact so many of the characteristics that are human are now found to some extent among the animals. If we look at the Greek Euchologian, the Greek book of prayers, used officially in the contemporary Greek Orthodox Church we have prayers for animals. Here is one of them: Lord Jesus Christ, moved by your own tender mercy, pity the suffering animals...For if a righteous man shows pity to the souls of his animals (Ps 12:10), how should you oh God not take pity on them, for you created them and you provide for them? In your compassion you did not forget the animals in the ark...Through the good health and the plentiful numbers of oxen and other four-footed creatures, the earth is

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

167

cultivated and its fruits increase; And your servants who call upon your name enjoy full abundance of the products of their farming.1

Well that prayer definitely shows compassion for animals and for their suffering and there are prayers specifically for sick animals. Well you may say if you are a farmer, it is very important that your animals should not die. The death of your horse would have been a severe blow to peasant farmers in earlier ages. So, if we pray for animals and we say they have souls, we cannot say simply that they have no human characteristics at all – the line of demarcation is not so clear. Now the normal view is that the animal soul is formed from the earth and therefore it is dissolved at death and does not survive. Yet the accounts in the Bible of the age to come make it quite clear that there will be animals there. The ox and the ass, the lion and the lamb will go together. The usual view is to say that they will not be the same animals, but how do we know? Do we have any right to say that animals do not possess immortality? I think this is a subject where we can simply say, we do not have a clear revelation on this point in Scripture. I cannot recall anywhere where it says animals cannot survive into a future life, so why shouldn’t we leave that to God’s mercy and say that we do not understand about this? So perhaps the animals do survive. So, in all of this, simply to say that animals have no souls is inadequate. It is a matter of opinion as opposed to any dogmatic statement from the Orthodox Church. It is a subject on which we have not been given clear revelation or guidance in revelation. Now it is true, that in the Orthodox Church, meat eating is allowed. It is considered that this only happened after the fall. In an unfallen world in paradise, humans did not kill the animals. The eating of meat is seen to some extent as a falling away from original perfection. But, we have never then been vegetarian as a matter of principle but it is interesting that monks and nuns usually abstain from meat. They do eat fish so it is not a vegetarian issue in itself. But coming back to the question from which we started, to me it is unsatisfactory to say animals have no souls and we should avoid making such an assertion. Presbytera Christina: Can I press for a specific answer to a point from my research. For example, in my research it is suggested that because an animal doesn’t have a soul it doesn’t matter if they are treated cruelly or again, that because animals do not have a soul they cannot

 1

Prayer of St. Modestos, Mikron Euchologion, 297.

168

Chapter Six

feel pain or suffer. Should it matter if an animal has a soul or not? Should that be our rationale to the way we treat it? Met. Kallistos: I reject those kinds of statements. I think the whole discussion on whether animals have souls or not is in the end probably a ‘red herring’. The point is that animals are living creatures, all life is from God, and therefore we should treat the animals with respect and reverence. They have their own characteristic dignity and we should respect that. Now we can use animals for our service, use horses for ploughing though we do not do that so much now, but we should nonetheless with our domestic animals, give them enough to eat, we should not overwork them, we should keep them warm and clean. So, in other words, in treating animals we should let them be themselves. They should be as far as possible healthy without pain or discomfort and if we do kill animals for our food, we should kill them in a humane way. I know in some religious traditions, you ask forgiveness from the animal before you kill it. There is no such teaching in the Orthodox Church that you have to do this but surely, it expresses something that we should respect and reverence the animals for what they are, as God has made them, for they are God’s creation and we should not show contempt for God’s creation. They have feelings and we should not hurt those feelings. Presbytera Christina: If I can stay with this subject for a moment, it seems that we have what I call a disconnect between the theory and the practice. If there is a perceived connection between what is thought to be Church teaching that animals do not have souls; that they are irrelevant and therefore it does not matter if they are cruelly treated, how can we disseminate the true opinion of the Church as you have expressed it today in this interview? How do we make people aware of these teachings/ proclamations of the Orthodox Church’s view? Met. Kallistos: We have to be patient but persistent. It often takes a long time for a message to percolate through to people in general but people’s attitudes can be changed and we have to work on that. Clearly, there are vested interests that will want to go on treating animals in the inhumane way that happens now, through battery hens or whatever, but we should quietly but persistently, combat those views. Opinions can be changed. There is in any rate, in our western society in countries like Britain and America, a greater sensitivity to the harm we are doing to creation and the need to change our ways of attitude. We have a very long way to go and we are faced by certain very strong financial interests but if we hold fast to our message and go

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

169

on preaching it, in season and out of season, about the value of the animal creation, this may result in a change gradually. To quote a quite different situation, I can recall in my youth and I am thinking back to the 1950s, being told by a doctor friend of my family that there was a definite connection between smoking and lung cancer. But, she said, the tobacco companies are so powerful and they have such financial resources behind them, they will fight to suppress the evidence. Yes, this did happen but nonetheless, in the last few decades, there has been a fundamental change of attitude towards smoking and people’s opinions have been changed. The anti-smoking lobby did not have big resources behind it and yet it has won. There are increasing restrictions on where one can smoke and the cigarette packets have on them the message that smoking kills. If you can change our attitude over smoking, can we not change our attitude over animals? Presbytera Christina: Would you give us your opinion on why there is an apparent lack of debate from Orthodox academics, on the theme of animal suffering and related issues? Met. Kallistos: There ought to be, for it should be seen as a direct consequence that respect for the creation, for the environment, carries with it more particularly respect for the animals. So, we have a basis to work on there because a lot has been written by Orthodox. It may not have permeated through to all the faithful but plenty has been said about the responsibility of humans for the environment, about the ecological crisis about the tragedy of what we are doing to the material creation. The present Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has said many things and several volumes have been issued of his addresses and sermons on this matter. So, we have a good basis there to work from. This theology of creation that the Orthodox Church is deeply committed to, the deepness and beauty of creation, has as a direct consequence, reverence for the animals. Why we have not so far made the connection, I am not really sure but it is high time we did so. Presbytera Christina: Would you agree that if the Church does have compassionate views towards animals within the created order, then there appears to be a need for the Church to ensure that its teachings are both taught and practised at grass roots, priestly level? How could this be achieved, particularly in relation to Cyprus, where many people become priests after they retire without any formal theological education? Should all clergy attend courses on the environment/animal welfare and/or should we include such training in our seminary courses?

170

Chapter Six

Met. Kallistos: There is need for education here at every level and we should start not with the people in theological seminaries but we should start much earlier with the children. That the normal catechism teaching given in our Church Sunday School classes should include teaching about the creation and about compassionate and Christian treatment of animals. We should start with people when they are young. The Orthodox Church should include such topics in the manuals that it puts out - the Church of Greece puts out plenty of books for teaching children and I know the Greek Archdiocese in North America has a programme with a lot of literature. I think we should struggle to see that this literature includes as one of its themes, part of the essential Christian teaching of respect for the animal creation. Then certainly later on when priests are given training, the courses the clergy are given should include teaching on the environment. The Ecumenical Patriarch has been saying this about the environment in general but this should also include teaching on the animals and how they should be treated. In general, we should be working on every level to educate people. We should bring this before them as a point that they ought to think about. We should encourage those who have this area of responsibility to educate the children and educate the priests so that they in turn can educate their people. Presbytera Christina: Is anyone writing this material? Met. Kallistos: I do not know of anyone doing this at the moment. But we must encourage them. What you are doing is important but the trouble is most people do not give priority to this issue and they do not think it matters - but it does matter very deeply. Presbytera Christina: Let me ask a question on this theme but from a different perspective. Isn’t the treatment of animals important, not simply to reduce their suffering, but also for our sake also? What does it say about the heart of someone who is cruel to other creatures or indifferent to suffering of any kind? Met. Kallistos: I think so. If we misuse the animals, this will have a negative effect on our own character. It will coarsen us and it will reduce our spiritual sensitivity. Misuse of the animals means that there is some ‘blind spot’ in our own understanding of God and our standing of our place in the world. So, yes, we are harming the animals and this is very serious but we are harming ourselves as well. Presbytera Christina: You are familiar with St Isaac the Syrian’s famous comment on “The Compassionate Heart.” What is your interpretation of this passage, with specific relevance for Orthodox Christianity’s engagement and treatment of animals?

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

171

Met. Kallistos: Now I have here “What is a Merciful Heart?” Presbytera Christina: Now that is interesting because I wrote to Dr Sebastian Broke about this title for I have seen both ‘Compassionate’ and ‘Charitable’ for the same text and these two meanings are quite different. As a specialist in Syriac, I asked him for his opinion. He was quite sure the correct translation was ‘Compassionate’. I also wrote regarding the use of the phrase ‘irrational animals’ in this text and he said that the Syriac did say “irrationals” and it was he who chose to put animals. My response was to say that depending upon when this was composed and interpreted ‘irrationals’ may well have included women and slaves. What it does do is highlight the importance of having expert translators. Met. Kallistos: Well yes. ‘Merciful Heart’ is not so different to ‘Compassionate’ and yes, there have been Christians who have said that women are not made in God’s Image but in my view, that is a definite error. Women are in the Image of God as much as man and women are baptised just as men are. The translation I have here follows the standard translation and I quote: What is a merciful heart?...It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for the demons and for all that exists...As a result of His deep mercy or compassion the heart shrinks and cannot bear to look upon any injury of the slightest suffering of anything in creation. That is why he constantly offers up prayers full of tears even for the irrational animals...He even prays for the reptiles as a result of great compassion that is poured out beyond measure in his heart after the likeness of God.2

Well here, we are challenged, for it is perhaps not so difficult to feel affection for squirrels but most of us perhaps do not like snakes. Here is another example by a twentieth-century saint, the Russian monk St Silouan the Athonite: One day I saw a dead snake on my path that had been chopped into pieces.

So obviously, somebody had deliberately cut it up.

 2

Homily 74, Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh, 386; also, Lossky, Mystical Theology, 111.

172

Chapter Six Each piece writhed convulsively and I was filled with pity for every living creature, every suffering thing in creation and I wept bitterly before God. 3

So here in Orthodox teaching across the centuries, is certainly a sense that the animals suffer and that we should mind about that; and not just the domestic animals but also the wild animals – not just the furry attractive creatures but also the animals we do not like so much. Presbytera Christina: It is a subject fraught with difficulties for if you love the fox, what about the fleas or ticks on the fox? Met. Kallistos: Yes, what do we do with the wasps? I find that if you sit still the wasps will usually go away; do not pursue it, just let it be and it will go in due course. But yes, this is all part of our rich Christian inheritance, biblical and in the Tradition, both Eastern and Western and the thing is we are all too ignorant of this but we must go on emphasising these teachings to other people and to ourselves. Presbytera Christina: Part of your answer to an earlier question touched upon the Church’s engagement-Christianity’s engagement and treatment of animals. My research in Cyprus shows there to be a complete lack of communication between the Church and the animal welfarists. They are ignorant of each other’s views and yet when you analyse what is said, and you have earlier ratified what the priest said to me, they are when analysed, saying the same thing. Yet I have evidence though I have not brought it out into the public discussions, of hostility between the two groups and definite fear of the Church. Fear by some that the Church will try to shut them down, stop them functioning, if they say anything negative about the Church. Now I know through personal experience that some animal welfare workers can be extremely difficult to work with. I have myself been insulted during my research in Cyprus, as I was perceived by some of being from the Church. They can be very difficult to work with because of their passion and because of the daily reality of dealing with animal cruelty, poisoning and abandonment and I understand that completely, but any group would have to be carefully chosen to include those willing to work together and the same would be true for the Church. I am seeing Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis in Cyprus in early March, to talk about my research findings and I have no idea what he

 3

Sakharov, Saint Silouan the Athonite, 367, 469.

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

173

will say, but one of the questions I asked the priest was whether the Orthodox Church might consider having a liaison officer to work with the animal welfarists. In other faiths they have a Christian animal welfare group: the Catholics have one, the Anglicans have one, I am not sure, if the Baptists have one but certainly there are examples. Is there any way that the Church can have an animal welfare group? Do we have one voice for Orthodoxy here, or would there be a need to set up national groups: a Cypriot group, a Serbian group etc? Would the Ecumenical Patriarch be open to the suggestion that there could be such a group-an Orthodox Christian Welfare group? How do you view that? Where is the way forward here? Met. Kallistos: Well there are several points here so let me try to answer them. Yes, I would certainly say that one step forward would be to try to set up a group in the Orthodox Church similar to the Anglican and Roman Catholic groups you mention who are concerned with animal welfare. Possibly Cyprus would not be the best place to start but I may be proven wrong. I feel that you are more likely to get a response to this from Orthodox in the western world, who have been more exposed to these sorts of ideas. I think something could be done to try to interest Patriarch Bartholemew on this since he has written and said so much. He is known as the ‘Green Patriarch’ because of his statements and actions concerning the misuse of the environment. He is concerned about the pollution of the water and the air but the whole problem of course is a single one and misuse of the animals goes hand in hand with misuse of the rest of the environment. It is all a single issue. So, if there is going to be leadership it might come from him. A possibility here is to contact Archdeacon John Chryssavgis who works with Patriarch Bartholemew on environmental matters. He has edited the different collections of Patriarchal essays. He was my pupil at one stage and I think he has been involved in the Patriarch’s statements. He would be worth contacting I feel and you have my blessing to do so. Another possibility is this. The Patriarch every year organises an ecological cruise. The delegates are Orthodox and non-Orthodox, from the worlds of economy, theologians and environmental scientists; because the question of the environment is not so much in having to persuade theologians, as persuading the politicians and the large international businesses and they are much more difficult to reach. He tries in these conferences on the high seas to bring people of influence together and to impress on each other, the urgency of these questions.

174

Chapter Six

Perhaps they could devote one of these floating symposiums specifically to the question of animals. It has been in the past that as they are travelling in a boat they have concentrated on the seas but why not the animals, though it is a little difficult perhaps to relate to the fishes. Presbytera Christina: Not if you dive Father, then it is easy to relate to marine life. The myriad of species, forms and colour is a sensory delight and I can tell of the inquisitiveness of cuttle-fish and octopi from my swimming so regularly in the various countries where I have lived. I have wonderful video footage of the inquisitiveness of one particular octopus who lived in one specific coral just off my home in the Seychelles and cuttle-fish and squid are equally fascinating. They will line up and watch you, signalling to each other the whole time and if you swim slowly towards them, they will retreat to the same extent that you come forward. If you retreat they will come forward and you can repeat this process several times – I usually then swim away as I do not wish them to become used to being around humans who are generally a danger to them. I have frequently turned around from examining or observing the behaviour of some creature only to find myself the object of inspection by another creature, not I must add a shark but certainly barracuda, squid and many varieties of fish. To come back to Fr. Chryssavgis, I was asked by the organiser of the forthcoming international conference on religion and animals that I am to present at later this year, if he would be worth inviting. My reply was certainly do so because he has written extremely well in general terms on creation as they all do, but nothing yet specifically on animals. Met. Kallistos: Yes, it is curious how they have not carried that a step further because it is not a very big step. Presbytera Christina: Well, sadly he could not come because his schedule is already full but he did respond by saying that he had wanted to write something for a long time and would like to be invited on another occasion. Met. Kallistos: Well I am glad he is in touch with Professor Linzey because he I think [Fr. Chryssavgis] is a key person in that he is advising the Patriarch on such matters. So, if you could contact him, you may be able to encourage him to discuss the issue of animals, their treatment and their place in the created order with the Patriarch that would be an excellent way forward. I am not aware of any Orthodox group that is concerned with this at the moment but like all things we have to start somewhere and this would seem to me a useful place to

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

175

start. I would certainly encourage you and bless you and when I next see John, I do not know when that will be but then I will take this matter up with him, as a new step that the Patriarch might take. The Patriarch has said plenty about the non-animate environment but what about the animate environment as well. Presbytera Christina: Lastly Father, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you at length on this matter and to thank you for discussing what some will see as sensitive, even political issues, though I do not see that they have to be. From my research, I can prove that the treatment of animals has been the subject of discussion in the Orthodox Church, though not a priority, from the earliest times. My research however identifies a distinct gap between the teachings and the practice. I do feel that the Orthodox Church has the wisdom and I would like to think the courage to lead the other religious groups as the Ecumenical Patriarch has done with the issue of the environment, if only they would focus their attention on the particular creature within, rather than the general overview of the environment. Certainly, your contribution today has started the conversation and I hope a wider and informed debate in Orthodoxy will follow.

Analysis Initially we can state that Met. Kallistos confirms the teachings of the Cypriot priest, the key points of which are: x The status of an animal’s soul should have nothing to do with how animals are treated. x Cruelty and abuse to animals is not acceptable. x There is recognition that animals feel pain and suffer. x We are to treat animals with loving kindness and compassion. x Poisoning and the abandonment of animals is unacceptable behaviour. x The neutering of animals is to be encouraged. Met. Kallistos began by outlining what he believed to be the traditional teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which included sensitivity to animal suffering with statements that we should treat animals “with reverence and respect.” 4 He also confirmed that animal protection is a

 4

See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2:5; also, Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word.

176

Chapter Six

long-standing tradition within the Eastern Orthodox Church and reaffirmed the biblical and patristic teachings on the cosmic consequences of abuse in the created world. When commenting on why certain priests and bishops had not responded to requests for help and, the lack of engagement in Eastern Orthodox academic literature, he proffers the suggestion that many clergy and laity think animal suffering does not matter “that the treatment of animals is not a moral issue.” He assures us that this is not the case whilst also acknowledging the sin involved and thus the soteriological implications for humanity. As this is an important element of my argument, it is worth repeating here: As soon as you say that animals are part of God’s creation and we humans have a God-given responsibility towards creation, then at once, one sees that it is both a moral and spiritual question. That is why the Ecumenical Patriarch was so right to insist that the misuse of creation is a sin - but all too many people don’t see it that way. The misuse of animals along with the misuse of any part of creation is a sin...the way we treat animals is directly relevant to our living of the Christian life.5

This confirms early Church teaching on the subject and supports my suggestion of the negative soteriological implications for humans who indulge in abusive practices towards animals. He agrees that this subject might not be a priority in the minds of many bishops and priests whose main focus is on the sinful human creatures, nevertheless, he insists that it ought to be: “It is not a matter of either/or, you should be concerned with humans and animals. The one doesn’t exclude the other.” In a separate statement, he is at a loss as to why contemporary Eastern Orthodox scholars have not written on the subject and suggests, “it is high time we did so.” 6 He also acknowledges that animals suffer and that their suffering should be of concern to us. Importantly, he reminds us that this includes “not just the furry attractive creatures but also the animals we don’t like so much.” This is a challenge to us all especially when it comes to animals which scare us or who are categorised by some as vermin. He bases his opinion upon the traditional Eastern Orthodox teachings of compassion for animals and quotes both St Isaac’s teaching on the “Compassionate Heart”

 5

He refers to the Patriarch’s comment at Patmos, available at: www.rkesymposia.org & www.ec-patr.org. 6 Because of this interview, he has since written an academic paper on this subject, “Orthodox Christianity: Compassion for Animals.” In The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics, (forthcoming 2018). See also Appendix B.

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

177

and St. Silouan the Athonite’s comments on a snake that had recently been chopped into pieces.7 To reinforce his point he informs us of the tradition of Eastern Orthodox prayers for animals which he states “shows compassion for animals and their suffering.”8 Met. Kallistos admits that this “rich Christian inheritance” is not widely known and he emphasizes the need for education on the theme. I have already noted the historical debate on animal souls in the fields of theology, philosophy and ethics and that it was also raised in the C. C. S. When asked if he agreed with the priest’s teaching that the classification or status of an animal’s soul was irrelevant to our treatment of animals, his initial response was to refer me to his article on this subject in order to clarify the Eastern Orthodox understanding on souls. 9 He then gave specific teachings on this important subject and as such is worth repeating: Just to say animals have no souls is inadequate, in fact so many of the characteristics that are human are now found to some extent among the animals…In fact any attempt to make a very sharp delineation in light of modern research into animal behaviour and intelligence, doesn’t entirely work. It is said that animals do not possess reason, more specifically, that they do not have immortal souls.10 The result of this approach has been that we are in danger of treating animals as objects and not subjects...To say animals don’t have reason is also questionable. Again, there is much research in this field…So it seems to me that you cannot make a sharp distinction here either. I think the whole discussion on whether animals have souls or not is in the end probably a ‘red herring’ [distraction]. The point is that animals are living creatures, all life is from God, and therefore we should treat the animals with respect and reverence…To me it is unsatisfactory to say animals have no souls and we should avoid making such an assertion.

Two key points emerge. First is the confirmation that the status of animal souls is irrelevant to how animals should be treated. This is

 7

Sakharov, St. Silouan, 469. Here he refers to the Prayer of St. Modestos. 9 Kallistos (Ware), “The Soul in Greek Christianity,” 49-69. 10 I have previously touched upon the influence of Hellenic philosophers on early aspects of theology but there is also evidence of their influence via their science. For example, St. Basil teaches that some creatures “spontaneously generated” which was a constant theme of Aristotle and Basil’s teaching on the Halcyon bird is an almost direct lift from Aristotle’s History of Animals, see Basil Hexaemeron, Homilies 7: 5; 8: 1. 8

178

Chapter Six

critically important for contemporary discussions in theology, philosophy and ethics for it challenges the endless cycle of debates on whether animals are entitled to salvation, justice and mercy; all of which impact upon how animals are treated in the ‘animal industries’ and thus their levels of suffering. His teaching again cuts through these debates with searing clarity: the status of an animal’s soul ought to be irrelevant to the way they are treated. He argues that the Eastern Orthodox position is that animals should be treated with respect and reverence regardless of the status of their souls. Second is the recognition that some historical teachings in this field are no longer credible. The Metropolitan is not the only contemporary Eastern Orthodox commentator to acknowledge flaws in earlier Church teachings and this too is an important recognition for the subject of animal suffering.11 Met. John affirms this position by suggesting that differences are a matter of degree rather than absence and, as we have previously noted, rejects the discredited science at the core of Aristotle’s categorizations of souls: In the past, philosophers made this distinction by saying that humans were specially characterized by intelligence or rationality. However, ever since Darwin showed that intelligence can also be found in other animals, and that the difference is a matter of degree and not of kind, philosophy no longer insists on rationality as the special characteristic of man. 12

I have already noted how several of the Fathers worked with the scientific and philosophical knowledge of their time and that some of this discredited science was incorporated into their homilies and teachings. 13 Whilst acknowledging this problem we have, via their examples, the authority to use science in contemporary theological discussions. H. A. H. Bartholomew speaks to this point when suggesting that the Eastern



11 Three contemporary examples are found in Sakharov, St. Silouan, 36; Sakharov, N. V. I Love Therefore I Am, 206-7, 212-3 and Butler and Morriss, Creation and the Heart of Man, 8. Recognition of the possibility of error is evident in the early Church by its judgment and declarations on errors produced in the teachings of some early Fathers such as Origen and differences between the Chalcedon and Anti-Chalcedon commentaries see Horn, Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine. 12 Met. John, “Preserving God’s Creation,” II. The Catholic Church in Pope Francis’ recent Encyclical Laudato Si’ also recognises this. I develop this in Chapter Nine. 13 E.g., St. Basil, Hexaemeron; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith; Gregory Palamas, Topics of Natural and Theological Science.

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

179

Orthodox Church should “cultivate a more comprehensive picture of scientific principles and demands in environmental issues.” 14 That being the case, it seems reasonable to include the available science on animal rationality and cognition rather than simply ignoring it. It is worth reminding ourselves of Theokritoff’s observations when contrasting Goricheva and Clement’s openness with that: …of other theologians who are very concerned to draw a sharp distinction between personhood, on the one hand, and the relationships, individuality and consciousness to be found in animals on the other…Arguments of this sort tend to be vehement but somewhat circular, however, and they frequently show little interest in what is actually known about animal behaviour.15

The key question to raise here is that if philosophy no longer insists on rationality as a special characteristic of man, is this also the case for theology. 16 As theologians and academics, we are encouraged by the Patriarch to engage with the contemporary science on environmental issues so it would seem irrational of us to ignore the science recognizing animal rationality, language, cognition, etc. Whilst it is important for the Orthodox Church to keep its tradition, it is likely to lose credibility, both in society and academic debate, if it insists on holding fast to concepts that are the theological equivalent of a ‘flat earth’. There is enough sound theological material to secure the special role of the human, without holding fast to flawed historical teachings, especially when they have resulted in incalculable suffering to God’s non-human created beings. On the specific points on pain and suffering arising in the C. C. S, Met. Kallistos is as bemused as the Cypriot priest is over the notion that they do not: The idea that animals do not suffer pain-I find that quite extraordinary…we have every reason to believe that animals experience pain as we do and to suggest therefore, that to inflict pain on animals is something morally neutral, I find abhorrent. It is a sin.

This is an important teaching for we have acknowledgement and clarity that inflicting pain on animals is a sin. 17 This teaching again stands

 14

Bartholomew, “Message for Orthodoxy and the Environment.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer, 378. 15 Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation, 240. ‘Other’ theologians are unreferenced. 16 See Chapter Nine.

180

Chapter Six

in stark contrast to the Western philosophers mentioned earlier who believed that because animals did not have the capacity for language, they had no capacity to feel pain or suffer.18 This is important, for the status of the soul has determined whether animals were allocated justice, mercy and the capacity to feel pain and suffer. This clearly has implications for many aspects of animal suffering and particularly so for those in the ‘animal industries’. Until now, the traditional stance is that only God’s human creatures were entitled to justice and mercy, yet as we have seen in the earlier chapters, the early Church offers a different message. When asked if our abusive treatment of animals is important not simply for the animals but also for humankind Met. Kallistos responds with the teaching that the misuse of animals not only reduces our spiritual sensitivity but also has a negative and coarsening effect upon the human character. This aligns with research, which links violence to animals with interpersonal violence19 and supports my argument that animal abuse has negative soteriological implications for humans. Met. Kallistos teaches that God has given us responsibility for creation and that we must reflect God’s Image in our treatment of animals, thus confirming my position on this point: This dominion that humans are given is part of being in God’s Image, so what this means is that just as God cares for His creation and loves it, so we, after the Image of God, are to care and love creation. This to me is the basic position of the Orthodox Church in regard to animals.

I have already noted, via my discussion on the saints, the potential for humans to recover “man’s natural condition”20 and that our ability to share close relationships with animals may be viewed as “a barometer” of our closeness with God.21 Of course, the converse is equally true.



17 I draw the reader’s attention to God’s acknowledgment of the continuation of evil in humans after Noah slaughters some of the animals God had instructed him to save. 18 Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Kant. 19 Unti, “Cruelty Indivisible: Historical perspectives on the links between cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence.” In Ascione, The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research and Application, 7-30; also, Linzey, The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence; American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, include animal cruelty as one diagnostic criterion. 20 Chitty, The Desert A City, 4. 21 Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation, 121.

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

181

On the important subject of intensive farming, Met. Kallistos recalls how the practice left him both shocked and disturbed. He states quite forcibly that: the desire of a larger profit was leading to an immoral use of living creatures.

This is another extremely important point and one he emphasises with equally strong language: even if it did diminish your profits, perhaps you should not make evil profit from creation…I was deeply shocked that the monks did not seem to see that there was something unchristian, contrary to our faith in the beauty of God’s world, to do such a thing as that.

Language such as “unchristian”, “immoral use” and “evil profit” echo H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching on the misuse of animals as sins and affronts to God. This again affirms the link between the abuses of animals with negative soteriological implications for humanity. Met. Kallistos was shocked at what he saw because such establishments are hidden away from the masses. It is easy to be ignorant of abuse when it is hidden from our sight, yet ironically, those who draw the public’s attention to a variety of abusive practices are often criticised for doing so by those who carry out the abuse. This is not a new tactic and the Metropolitan foresees these arguments: Clearly, there are vested interests that will want to go on treating animals in the inhumane way that happens now, through battery hens or whatever, but we should quietly but persistently, combat those views. Opinions can be changed.

Met. Kallistos is correct. Criticism from vested interests is common because there is a great deal of money involved in the ‘animal industries’ but he is clear on our course of action: we, like the Archetype, should stand in opposition to them.22 In order to address the “whatever” I believe it is necessary to provide details of some of the realities in our food producing systems. As there is a huge amount of research in this area, I have chosen to explore this topic in detail in Chapter Nine. For the moment, I step outside the normal theological discourse here in order to make my next point.

 22

Met. Kallistos mentions the tobacco industry as one example.

182

Chapter Six

If we compare the practice of intensive farming with that of the slave trade,23 we see similar arguments being made from those with financial investments, the vested interests, in those ‘industries’. The European slave traders of the 18th and 19th centuries advanced the argument that African slaves were essential for cheap food and cotton. They also insisted that their slaves were kept and treated satisfactorily. The reality, as we all know, was different. The buying and selling of humans as objects and property not only took away their freedom but also their inherent dignity and agency. Keeping slaves in abject poverty and treating them cruelly kept the human slaves under submission through fear which served to reinforce the owner’s power and/or, the supremacy of the white man over the ‘sub-species’ of the black savage. This was the norm in society at that time and the huge wealth produced by this “evil profit” contributed to making England one of the richest countries in the world. In essence, slavery enabled the manufacturer to be commercially competitive. The correlation between the abhorrent practice of human slavery and the treatment of billions of animals in the modern intensive food production industries is high. Society no longer views non-human animals as individual creatures with their own dignity and agency but rather as disposable objects and units of production. We accept their abuse in order to make the manufacturers commercially competitive and increase their profits. Society allows animals, like their human counterparts of that bygone era, to suffer immense physical and mental suffering; they are worn out and ‘unproductive’ well before their normal lifespan. I am not the only one to make this connection: This is precisely why we are convinced that responding to the problem of modern slavery is directly and inseparably linked to creation care, which has been at the very center of our patriarchal ministry over the last quarter of a century. The entire world is the body of Christ; just as human beings are the very body of Christ. The whole planet bears the traces of God, just as every person is created in the image of God. The way we respect creation reflects the way that we respond to our fellow human beings. The scars that we inflict on our environment reveal our willingness to exploit our brother and sister.24

Met. Kallistos speaks to how this could be quite different:

 23

We might also use the treatment of people in the early factory or mining industries. 24 Bartholomew, “Sins Before Our Eyes: A Forum on Modern Slavery.”

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

183

Give them enough to eat, we should not overwork them, we should keep them warm and clean. So, in other words, in treating animals we should let them be themselves. They should be as far as possible healthy without pain or discomfort and if we do kill animals for our food, we should kill them in a humane way.

His teachings again reaffirm the earlier compassionate theology outlined in patristic teachings on use rather than misuse; on not using our freedom as a “cloak of maliciousness” and the extension of mercy and compassion for “all things.” Whilst I do not suggest that St. Basil (or Bartholomew) had intensive farming practices in mind, I remind the reader of St. Basil’s important teaching on the Golden and Silver rules as they have relevance for my point.25 Two extremely challenging questions now arise. Once we know of the cruel practices perpetrated against animals in food production industries or elsewhere, what are the soteriological implications if we continue to consume or wear animal products produced in these “unchristian” and sinful ways? Equally, what are the soteriological implications for those who work in animal industries such as traditional and intensive farming, fur farms and animal testing facilities when the suffering of animals within these industries is evident? I have already noted teachings on the Golden and Silver rules and another teaching, which might guide us here, is from St. Silouan: If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. 26

God’s original choice for our food, the violence-free dietary ideal of vegetarianism, addresses one of these challenging questions in a simple and humane way. The second is far more challenging yet the teachings are equally clear; inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on animals is as much of an “immoral use”, sin and insult to God, as any other form of abuse and perhaps the Golden and Silver rules are even more apposite.27 Moving now to the neutering of animals as a form of population control, Met. Kallistos clarifies the Eastern Orthodox Church position. Orthodoxy has never forbidden the neutering of animals and “when used

 25

Basil, Hexaemeron, Homily 9: 3. Silouan, quoting 1 Co 8:13 in Sakharov, St. Silouan, 95. Roberts informs us of the lives of one hundred and fifty saints who chose a vegetarian non-violent diet, among them are Saints Anthony, Hilarion, Makarios, Palaemon & Pachomius. Roberts, Vegetarian Christian Saints: Mystics, Ascetics and Monks. 27 See Chapter One for the discussion on ‘unnecessary suffering’. 26

184

Chapter Six

in a responsible way” neutering is a good method of population control. This affirmation is crucially important, for it rejects the common assertion that the Eastern Orthodox Church is against this practice. Many, who do not want to pay to have their animals neutered, frequently use this as an excuse for not doing so. This reluctance to neuter directly contributes to the over-population of domestic pets, which in turn leads to vast numbers of abandoned, suffering animals worldwide.28 Connected to this problem is the use of poisons to kill these unwanted or nuisance animals because it is a cheaper method of controlling animal populations. Met. Kallistos is clear - the poisoning of animals is a sin and a form of evil. He condemns and defines the practice as a cruel method for disposing of unwanted animals: Poisoning seems to me an evil way to dispose of animals because it will usually involve a lingering and painful death. There are more humane ways of dealing with the problems.29

Poisoning is cruel and unnecessary for as noted, there are entirely acceptable alternatives. One might argue however, that governments or local authorities need to balance the books and it is right for them to use poison because it is cheap. This is undoubtedly true, yet can we ignore that its use inflicts considerable pain and suffering? When economics is the driving factor in our treatment of animals, the end result is usually suffering. With knowledge of the suffering involved and that humane alternatives are available the question arising here is whether this approach is compatible with either Christian theology or ethics. It is also important to ask what the soteriological implications are for those who use economic factors to determine the solution for their individual/collective problems. Are there consequences for those who execute this method as part of their work for governments or local authorities? The early and contemporary teachings presented thus far give us the answer. This teaching by H. A. H. Bartholomew gives us further guidance: The thoughtless and abusive treatment of even the smallest material and living creation of God must be considered a mortal sin. An insult toward



28 See W. H. O. report by Bagel, “Guidelines for Dog Rabies Control”; also, United Nations, Food and Agriculture Report, “The Challenge of Dog Population Management for Public Health and Animal Welfare”; Jackman and Rowan, “FreeRoaming Dogs” in “Developing Countries: The Benefits of Capture, Neuter, and Return Programs.” 29 Anthony of Sourozh used the exorcism of the Holy Martyr Tryphon mentioned earlier to rid his home of unwanted mice rather than use poison or traps.

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

185

the natural creation is seen as-and in fact actually is-an unforgivable insult to the uncreated God. 30

Perhaps even more remarkably, we are also informed that such treatment: …even out of negligence, constitutes not simply an evil, but a grave sin. 31

These teachings affirm my arguments that it is not just those who perpetrate direct and intended abuse to animals that are in mortal danger, but also those who know of abuse and are indifferent to it or know but fail to act in order to prevent it. Regardless of what our opinions may be, we cannot fail to acknowledge the soteriological implications of animal abuse and misuse. The reason why Eastern Orthodox teachings such as these are important is that they clarify certain practices as sins. The identification of sinful actions and practices allow individuals, governments and conservationists to make informed choices. Despite the obvious objections that will arise from my arguments here as elsewhere, it is traditional teaching that the Eastern Orthodox Church should preach the value of the animal creation and not be concerned with either the politics or the difficulties experienced in the practising of its teachings. As the Fathers counselled and Met. Kallistos and H. A. H. Bartholomew reiterated, the Eastern Orthodox Church has always taught a difficult message. Moving now to how we might disseminate the traditional teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church on the subject of animal suffering, Met. Kallistos suggests this will be achieved through “education at every level” and offers practical suggestions so often missing from contemporary discussions. Education on the theme should be through seminary courses for the clergy and through Church education programmes and catechism classes for the laity. In so doing, he reiterates the calls from H. A. H. Bartholomew, Limouris and Met. John, who argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church will have to “revise radically her concept of sin…and start speaking of sin against nature, as a matter of primary religious significance.” He states:

 30

Bartholomew, “Christmas Encyclical Message.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 127. See also, “A Rich Heritage,” 190, where Bartholomew teaches that the misuse of any part of creation is a sin and advocates we seek ethical and “even legal recourse…in matters of ecological crimes.” 31 Bartholomew, “Message of the Synaxis of Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 201.

186

Chapter Six The Church must introduce environmental teaching into her preaching, Sunday schools, and other religious forms of education from the lowest to the highest level. The Church cannot be faithful to her mission today without a serious involvement in the protection of God’s creation from the damage inflicted on it by human greed and selfishness.32

We again see the common use of ‘environment’ yet it would surely be a misreading to believe this teaching excludes animals. Such programs must include education on both the sin of animal abuse and exploitation together with teachings on the need for protection. In order to facilitate this practical step, I have constructed and include as part of this work, an outline for a Master’s Dissertation on the subject of animal suffering and a module for seminary courses both of which are available in Appendix B. 33

Chapter Six Summary During this interview, Met. Kallistos acknowledges the gap in the Eastern Orthodox academic debate and between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice. He provides much needed clarity on many animal suffering issues, which includes contentious topics such as animal souls. He is clear that the status of animal souls should be irrelevant to the way they are treated. He also acknowledged the important fact that teachings, which rely on the irrationality of animals, are questionable and open to challenge. In essence, Met. Kallistos identifies the main damaging philosophical and theological teachings, which have resulted in great suffering to the animal creation. He also provides more ‘theory’ to work with in our discussions and attempts to formulate a universal Eastern Orthodox theological position on animal suffering which is based upon love, compassion and mercy. It is my hope that other senior Eastern Orthodox theologians will take his lead and engage with the subject.



32 Met. John, “Foreword.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, viii, aligns with the ‘Suggestions’ of the animal protectionists in Chapter Five. 33 Seminary Project entitled “Protecting God’s Non-Human Animal Creation.” There are requests by some Orthodox academics for theologians to provide practical initiatives rather than abstract proclamations.

CHAPTER SEVEN INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP ISAIAS OF TAMASOU AND ORINIS

Overview Chapter Seven presents the 2014 interview between Bishop Isaias of Tamasou & Orinis of Cyprus and Presbytera Christina on the 4th March 2014. I include other commentary from meetings I have attended where he gives statements on hunting and animal experimentation, which were not covered in the C. C. S. or the interview with Met. Kallistos. Bishop Isaias acknowledges the gap in the academic debate and Eastern Orthodox theory and practice. He provides further clarity on many animal suffering issues, including some of the most contentious topics such as hunting and the use of animals in laboratory testing. His teachings provide further material for the development of an Eastern Orthodox theology for animals, which is based upon love, compassion and mercy.

Interview Presbytera Christina: Firstly, I would like to thank you for this interview, which will be part of my research for my PhD, entitled, Ancient Voices in Modern Theology: Orthodox Teaching and Practice in Animal Suffering and Welfare.1 Bishop Isaias: Let me give a general statement of our approach to animals and creation. From the time we realise that everything is from God, the animals, the plants, the earth, the planets, we are humbled before God and thankful for His creation because all this was created for us, for the service of humankind. Of course, the main creation is the human life and everything else is to help the preservation of the human life. This means that we must be thankful for this creation, which is created, for our well-being.

 1

This was the original title of my PhD.

188

Chapter Seven

Presbytera Christina: Father if I may point out one problem here. The danger with that one approach or perspective is that this view alone leads to the situation we have today where the rest of creation is seen purely for our use and not there for us to protect and prosper as stewards or priests of God’s creation, which is now a common theme within Orthodoxy. Bishop Isaias: Yes, you are right they are connected. It is a combination of these together with a spiritual connection-you cannot separate them. For example, sheep are used for my food but it is a creation of God that is now given for me to eat so that I survive. I should protect it, firstly because it is a creation of God and secondly it is for my benefit. I cannot mistreat animals that are used in the food chains just because they are for that purpose. Presbytera Christina: So, to clarify what you are saying is that we need to protect them for three reasons: 1) They are part of God’s creation and we should love them for themselves. 2) We should protect them because some of them are also for our food. 3) We should protect them because if we abuse them this is bad for us in the spiritual context. Bishop Isaias: Yes, there are several threads. We have a spiritual connection and how we treat animals is a spiritual matter. There is a special connection with the animals and plants because we are all part of the Holy providence. God did not make anything by mistake, all things were made with perfection and as created beings, we are all connected. Yes, there is a discrimination of levels. We use hierarchical levels in tradition, so I cannot put the rest of the animal kingdom or planets in the same level as humans but this does not mean that humans should be disrespectful of the rest of creation. We must be proud that it is given for us and all of us must protect it. Otherwise we are not good curators and do not respect the creation of God. It is a spiritual thing because our intentions and our actions define who we are. If you are violent to an animal, you can easily be violent to human beings. If you are disrespectful to nature and to forests this too means that you will easily be disrespectful to humans because we are all connected. Everything is connected. Animals are our companions, they also give us food, and they make the world more beautiful so we can see the beauty of God through creation. People feel comfortable near to animals, this is why they have

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

189

pets, and this is a good thing on many levels. It is important that people should try to stop the cruelty to animals and try to protect them this is a good thing. It is also good that the people protect the nature, the forests – the green kingdom shall we say. So, whilst we say that humans are the main creation this is not to denigrate the rest of creation. They are God’s creation and we must respect that and treat them respectfully. If you express negative thoughts or actions to creation this means that you are a bad person, a bad human being. Because man was created with a conscience of virtue – perfect and clear-, you cannot or should not do bad things. We have circumstances in the way we are brought up and this will affect us but our aim is to keep our conscience clear and to have a good heart. This is why Jesus Christ said that if you want to inherit the kingdom of God you must become like the children. Children have clear hearts and clear consciences – without destructions. They have not learnt bad things, they have no hatred and they have no vested interests. We can easily identify bad people because we see how they act-they will disrespect creation and the people. God gave man a conscience and this must be kept clear of bad actions, it must be without hatred and free of vested interests. We have a tradition in the Church of Staretz-Holy people who have had a very good relationship with animals, even the wild animals. These Fathers had a pure heart, a good heart and a good conscience. They have shown us how we should behave and have given us clear examples of how to live our lives. Not one of them did anything wrong to the animals or to nature. They understood their place and were connected to all of nature. Some examples are St. Mamas and St. Gerasimus, or Daniel in the cave with the lions and lately, Holy Father Paisius who used to talk to the animals. This shows us that people who have a clear conscience can become more approachable to animals, can have a closer relationship with animals because the animals recognise the love that is reflected in their life. They have no fear of these men. Of course, the devil interferes with the animals and as we are tempted, so animals are tempted. You can see bad behaviour in animals as you do in humans. We see some people making bad use of animals and making them bad as they are bad and so we have to be careful of some animals but this is another subject. Presbytera Christina: Yes father, this is one of the subjects the animal welfarists have to deal with. The research would show that it is not the animal that was bad but the bad person who owned that animal that made it bad, they brutalise them and we can give for example the way animals are made to fight each other for the profit of some bad people.

190

Chapter Seven

Bishop Isaias: Yes exactly. So, temptation is everywhere, where there are bad actions and thoughts, there too is the devil. So, we have to take care of our own actions to safeguard our own souls. Presbytera Christina: From this, you would seem to suggest that animals have their own consciousness. Is that what you mean? Bishop Isaias: Well yes, in a way. They have their instincts and they have their genes. We can bring up a lion with a kind heart from the time it is born but at all times we must understand that it is a lion and if it is provoked or it is hungry it may turn against us. It is true that there is research, which shows that many animals have intelligence and understanding, and now we cannot say they do not but still we need to be aware of their innate character in this fallen world. We can say that the animals have their justice and that is different from the justice in the humans. We have a consciousness that is different. For example, an animal that is hungry will eat what is before it, but a man who is hungry and needs to survive, must be tolerant. He must not mistreat other people and he must not harm the environment because he has some needs. We have been given all by God, but we must not misuse it. We have been given our reason and our freedom and we are free to choose what we do, this is not so easily said for the animals that have strong instincts to act as they do. This does not detract from what I said before, in fact, it is more so. We must choose to act for the benefit of all creation not just for our own selfish will. We must act for the good of all creation. Unfortunately, we are mistreating this free will, or misusing this free will, because everywhere we can see how we are misusing creation. Now there are animals that have excellent reason and instincts and have very similar abilities to human beings, like the chimpanzees for example. I have done my own research and I know that there are many studies now that shows how close many species are to us and this is a good thing because it helps us to see how connected we are to the other animals in the kingdom of God. This should help us to understand our connectedness and to treat them well. So, we must not idolize animals but at the same time, we must take measures to protect them. I think it is important to say that we understand the people who try to stop the cruelty to the animals do not idolize them but instead, they see that connection that many others do not see. We have to be kind to all creatures. Kindness should show no discrimination. We must not discriminate against the animals. We must

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

191

not have a selfish kindness. I mean here that we should not be kind to animals just because it benefits us, like for our food, or for our companions or that they decorate the world. We need to be kind to animals because it is who we are, we are made in the Image of God and we must reflect the love of God in his kindness to all things and because they belong to God. We have a conscience given to us by love, initiated by God who is love and we must use it to love all things. So human beings who are not kind and thoughtful, who are not protective of animals, are bad human beings. They are bad people because their violence and mistreatment of animals means that they have complexes-they have problems. It is not the animals that are the problem but the people and the problems are inside their hearts. I am very satisfied that humankind has progressed and has found rules to keep us on a good path. I remember a big debate in America, about the ways animals are killed and that the animals should not be tortured in any way. Any killing should be done without pain and suffering to the animals. They have rules for how they breed them and how they kill them and I completely agree that such rules are necessary. We should be respectful and treat them with kindness. There are laws for how animals are bred and killed and if people do not follow these rules, they are bad people. Violence and mistreatment, when you hear of this, apart from the suffering of the poor animals, we also think of the person who has done this act. We ask who are these people and how could they do such things? The answer is because they have a bad heart. It is a psychological and psychopathological problem. Presbytera Christina: Yes father, there is much evidence to show that those people who perpetrate extreme violence to other humans have already exhibited the same extreme violence to animals when they were children. In the past, this connection was not made but now it is one of the key indicators for psychiatrists and the police in understanding a deeply disordered personality. So, Father, this is a great overview and a welcome and positive statement of the position of the Orthodox Church’s views about animals and their treatment. Could we now look at the specifics of the research in Cyprus? The original research showed that the Orthodox Church was thought of as not caring for animals. That is not what my research into the early Church has shown. There, we have many examples of compassion for animals and so despite having a wealth of examples and texts, this appears not to be the practice on the ground.

192

Chapter Seven

For example, when people have written to the Church they have not received any response. This lack of communication has reinforced this misunderstanding of the Orthodox Church’s teachings. Until my research, all that has been said has been on the environment-creation in its widest sense. Little is said about the animals and how we should treat them. In my interview last week with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, I have a clear statement on the Orthodox Church’s position on a variety of animal themes but until this meeting that we have today, we have nothing from the Orthodox Church in Cyprus, can you explain why this is? Bishop Isaias: It is traditional for us as Orthodox to have a good relationship with the animals. Our theology is favourable to the animals. We have never tolerated violence but we have never said anything because I think it was not seen as necessary. Now, however, we see more and more the ill treatment of animals and it is true, it is time that we in the Church said something. Before there did not seem the need but it is different now and this is why I am giving you this interview. As Christians, many of us have pets or had pets and many of us know the work of the groups who protect animals, some even helped in these groups. In the context of Cyprus, we can do more and we should do more. That is why I am ready to do something. Now, when we see these instances of violence or people bring us information, we must do something about it. I understand that there has been a lack of communication and I am happy to deal with this. I believe that when we have gatherings or go to Christian societies and talk to people, we should mention things that are troubling people in their everyday lives, like the treatment of animals. I am very disturbed to hear that some priests have misused animals and whilst this is not every priest, even if it is one priest, it is a priest and one bad priest can easily become two priests and so we must take care. It is true that many of our teachings do not get through to the people but this is true for many other things as well as the animals. It has to do with the nature of the individual person, some will listen and understand whilst others will go their own way, against the teachings. It has to do with their character and their own weaknesses. If you are a good Christian, you will love the animals and they will love you back and there are many books showing this through the lives of the early saints as I said before. You cannot find a Holy man who has mistreated animals.

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

193

In this country, we have the Green party and they have spoken of the need to protect the environment and I agree with them. Some people have asked if it is possible to have a place where they can protect the animals in my district and I have said yes but I have told them that they must take care of them, not just put them there and leave them. Now let me talk of the practical problems. We see now that there is more mistreatment of animals; this is because of the moral crisis and of the economic crisis. Again, it is a spiritual thing. It is covered in the teachings of the virtues. If there is any weakness in the person, evil will enter and this will be shown against the little children, the defenceless women and against the animals. I understand that there is research that shows this to be so. Specifically, on the subject of communication, I would propose that there is a reservation from some Christian Orthodox groups to discuss with people from these welfare groups because some of these people are not Christians and some are seen as difficult. Presbytera Christina: But father all this reticence does is reinforce the belief that the Orthodox Church is not interested or concerned about the suffering of animals and is therefore counterproductive. Bishop Isaias: Well I believe that a good way to show this is not true and I have been thinking of this for some time, is to open a dialogue by establishing an Orthodox Church group within my Diocese for the protection of animals. I also think we should have some training sessions for our priests on this theme and some talks for our Christian groups. Presbytera Christina: Well I have to say that this would be a wonderful initiative for it would, to my knowledge, be the first in the Orthodox World. The Catholics have one, the Anglicans have one, the Muslims have one but as yet not the Orthodox Church, so this would be a very positive move. I will add that it is remarkable that this move would come from Cyprus which will now be seen as a leader in this field just as the Ecumenical Patriarch has been for his role in the environment. Bishop Isaias: Many of my parishioners have cats and dogs, they love them, and I am sure they will be happy to begin such a project. Presbytera Christina: Well I expect they do have cats and dogs and I would like to bring up one related point Father and this is the need for clarity in Cyprus on the position of the Orthodox Church on the neutering of animals. It is suggested that the Church forbids this practice or that as it is against the animal’s nature we must not interfere

194

Chapter Seven

with that nature. If this is not the position of the Church can you give us the correct Orthodox position on neutering? Bishop Isaias: There is no such statement. There has of course never been any need before to make such a statement but I am prepared to say quite clearly that the Orthodox Church has no such teaching. We do not forbid the neutering of animals. We shall make a statement and we shall publish it to ensure people understand our position and not, as you rightly say, use this as an excuse for not having their animals neutered. Presbytera Christina: Father this is an excellent idea but before we continue, I would like to ask you something further on the research. It is suggested that the Church has a representative or indeed representatives who are teaching in schools, that because an animal does not have a soul it does not matter how they treat it or, that because an animal does not have a soul it doesn’t matter if you are cruel to it or, that animals don’t feel pain. Can you make a clear statement on the Orthodox Church’s position on these ‘teachings’? Should we use the criteria of an animal’s soul as the criteria for the way we treat it? Bishop Isaias: This is certainly not the case. This is not Orthodoxy and I would like the name of that person if you can find it. All creatures have a soul - this is the teaching from the earliest time. We need to define what is meant by soul. You mention Plato and Aristotle but these are philosophers not theologians. Aristotle said that there were three kinds of souls but what he meant was ‘life-force’ and this is true. You mention Metropolitan Kallistos’s statements on this and he is right when he says there is no dogma in the Church on this and so yes, it is a matter of opinion but in general, we do differentiate between a human soul and an animal soul. He is also right when he says that the issue of the soul in relation to how we treat animals only confuses the matter. What we seem to have is some people taking a bit of philosophy and a bit of theology and they mix them up and come up with something which is not Orthodox. Let me be clear. Animals are the creation of God; we should treat them with respect and not be cruel to them, and what kind of soul they have has no part of that discussion. We should not be involved in this type of argument; it should not be used, as it only serves to confuse what should be very clear. We should not be cruel to animals-it is that simple. We should not be cruel-we should love. Presbytera Christina: The next topic I would like to talk with you about Father is the matter of education, particularly theological education. Met. Kallistos has said that often, all too often in fact, theologians meet

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

195

at conferences and agreements are made but that this information or teaching rarely gets to the people on the streets or to the village priest. He mentioned also that he had spoken with President Makarios and had asked him what he thought his biggest task was and his reply was that he wanted above all, to improve the education for the village priest. That was forty years ago. How do you think we can get these Orthodox teachings to the priests and their parishioners? Bishop Isaias: President Makarios was correct. Now all of our priests who have chosen the priesthood as their vocation attend Seminary College but there are some who become priests later in life after a career elsewhere and these do not have that level of education, though we do have training courses for them. Presbytera Christina: Are the priest taught anything on the environment or on the ethical treatment of animals? Bishop Isaias: I do not think so, though I do know the Ecumenical Patriarch wants this. Perhaps he has something but let me say this, why do we not start this? We can make a programme for our priests here in Cyprus. Presbytera Christina: Ok, but who has the knowledge on both Orthodox theology and the ethical treatment of animals and the environment? Who will do this? Bishop Isaias: This is a good question and again this is something I have been thinking of for a while. I think it is time that we had someone from here, one of my students to do a Masters in this subject, Orthodoxy and the Animal Kingdom, I think this would be a very good start. We would then have the research available to us in Greek from which to write a programme for our priests, based on our research and in one year or two at the most, we can make a proposal to our Synod that this programme be taught in our seminaries. This would be for the new priests but we could also have training programmes for the existing priests. Presbytera Christina: Well Bishop Isaias may I say firstly that I thank you for the large amount of time you have spent discussing this subject with me as I know you are a very busy man. Can I also say that I am extremely encouraged by what you have said and feel that your comments, together with those by Metropolitan Kallistos, have enabled me to give a clearer teaching of the Orthodox Church’s position on the welfare and treatment of animals in the 21st Century than would otherwise have been the case.

196

Chapter Seven

Analysis Initially, I can state that Bishop Isaias agrees with the teachings from the Cypriot priest and Met. Kallistos whilst adding further clarity and practical initiatives on this theme. He acknowledges the lack of engagement by the Eastern Orthodox Church and accepts that the Church should do more and ought to act when informed of abuse. The first point I wish to discuss, is his statement that the Eastern Orthodox Church’s lack of engagement may be because some see animal protectionists as difficult and not Christians. I believe he is right in his analysis for such comments are just two in a list of criticisms against those who work in animal protection.2 However, this reluctance to engage seems only to reinforce the belief that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not interested or concerned about the suffering of animals. This is not to state that Bishop Isaias holds these views. His willingness to engage with my work; meet with the C.V.A.; his offers to establish an Orthodox Church animal protection group in his Diocese; his offer of land for a neutering clinic; his commitment to train his priests and give presentations on animal protection to local Christian groups, provide ample evidence of a different mind-set.3 The question emerging is whether the resulting lack of engagement is a credible position for the Church whose remit is to bring the Word of God to non-Christians or those perceived as difficult and in need of guidance. We have part of the answer in Christ’s engagement with tax collectors and sinners, which evoked criticisms against Him; His challenge to the authority of Pharisees because their traditions had made them spiritually blind and the charges he incurred when His disciples were not “observing the tradition of the elders”. Were these perceptions and charges valid? St. Irenaeus reminds us of Christ’s response to His accusers: “And ye have made void the word of God by reason of your tradition.”4 “Why do ye transgress the commandment of God, for the sake of your tradition?”5



2 Other criticisms are that animal protectionists are “sentimentalists” and “indifferent to the suffering of humans.” Whilst I accept that some activists can be difficult at times, this cannot be said to be a permanent character trait and should not be used as a blanket description of them all. I discuss this presently. 3 He is also Patron along with Met. Kallistos of the Pan-Orthodox Concern For Animals Charity. 4 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.9:3.

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

197

Christ is clear that ‘tradition’ does not necessarily give us spiritual or moral authority to act in the ways we do. If Christ openly challenges traditions that lose sight of God’s compassion, as Image, there is authority for us to do the same. All too often people use ‘tradition’ in their arguments for continuing harmful and exploitative practices and especially so, if money is involved. Better, surely, that we look to Christ to ensure our treatment of others reflects His Image and not our distorted version of the truth. A good historical example is William Wilberforce, a deeply committed Christian yet undoubtedly perceived of as difficult by those with vested interests in the slave trade. Perhaps less well known is that he, along with Rev. Bloom, an Anglican priest, began the first animal welfare/protection movement, which later evolved into the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals.6 Modern examples of difficult people who challenge accepted practices and ‘traditions’ which evoked criticism would be Martin Luther King in the 1950s American civil rights movement; those involved in campaigns against the tobacco industry or those involved in the modern environmental and animal protection/ conservation movements. Bishop Isaiah speaks to the point: I think it is important to say that we understand the people who try to stop the cruelty to the animals do not idolize them but instead, they see that connection that many others do not see.

His references to the idolizing of animals draw our attention to my earlier suggestion that remnants of such thought remain in the psyche of the contemporary Church and one possible factor in its lack of engagement. He offers a different and positive perspective when teaching that the protectionists see the spiritual connection that many others fail to apprehend. If ‘difficult’ people throughout history had not challenged traditional practices, then abuse to ethnic minorities and women would be more commonplace. There would be unrestricted advertising campaigns for cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. Environmental pollution and global warming would be much worse than it is today. Testing cosmetics on animals would still be legal in every country, as would bear and badger baiting, dog and cock fighting, fox and deer hunting, etc. 7 Are we right to denigrate the characters of those who try to protect both creatures and our

 5

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.12.1. See the photographs in Chapter One relating to bull fighting, hunting and other related “traditions of men.” 6 Established in 1824. 7 See for example the Real Countryside Alliance at: http://www.wildlifeguardian.co.uk/hunting/organisations/sample-page/

198

Chapter Seven

planet from unnecessary harm, suffering and death over those who place a higher value on profit, tradition or their passions? On the gap between theory and practice, Bishop Isaias explains that many teachings do not filter down to the laity and that in some cases it is more to do with the unreceptive nature and spiritual weakness of the individual. Whilst the point is valid, there is little evidence to suggest that the laity receives any teachings on this subject. We must note that the C.C.S. indicates that several priests refused to comment on the poisoning of cats and dogs. He continues by outlining the dominant Eastern Orthodox tradition on this theme, which is not without its problems, as he repeats the anthropocentric focus so heavily criticised by White and others. There is however, acknowledgment that the misuse of animals is a misuse of human freedom and that we are not to mistreat animals “that are used in the food chains just because they are for that purpose.” 8 This echoes St Gregory’s teachings on ‘use not misuse’ and Met. Kallistos’s teaching on ‘evil profit’. He also affirms Met. Kallistos’s teaching that our treatment of animals is not simply a moral or ethical issue but also a spiritual one. He explains that despite the hierarchical structure of society, if we do not protect creation “we are not good curators and do not respect the creation of God”. Many contemporary Orthodoxy scholars refer to Dionysios the Areopagite when discussing the hierarchy of beings. Perl (2013) 9 argues that this is a misreading that has been used for centuries as the authority for the “superior” to exploit the “inferior.” Perl also states that this is one cause of today’s ecological crisis and proffers an alternative interpretation, which suggests that Dionysios offered: continuity rather than opposition between higher and lower orders of beings and beneficent and grateful love rather than domination and subservience as the relation between them.10

I agree with Perl’s analysis, which as noted, is supported by the Maximian teachings on the logoi in individual beings, where regardless of one’s place in the hierarchal scale, each creature has a direct relationship with God. Loudovikos (2010) describes this concept as “dialogical reciprocity.” I asked Loudovikos if he believed St. Maximus’ view of logoi could be used to develop the concept of animals having a direct

 8

The discussion on dispensations maintains that animals are not originally for that purpose. 9 Perl, “Hierarchy and Love.” In Chryssavgis & Foltz Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, 23-33. 10 Perl, 24.

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

199

relationship with God and he indicated that this would be possible via his understanding of “mutual reciprocity” between the created and the Creator. Reciprocity is a familiar theme in Eastern Orthodoxy which Stylios (1989)11 examined in relation to the ecological issue arguing that St. Maximus “affirms an irrefutable relationship of God with all of creation” the purpose of which “is the elevation of the created world to God and final union with its Creator”. 12 Bishop Isaias explains the relevance of this teaching in the context of animal suffering when teaching that whilst humans are at the top of this hierarchal scale: …this is not to denigrate the rest of creation. They are God’s creation and we must respect that and treat them respectfully.

The implications for non-human animal beings are self-evident. On the relationship between animals suffering and human salvation, Bishop Isaias reiterates the patristic and contemporary teachings that we must not harm or misuse creation “just for our own selfish will” and acknowledges, “everywhere we can see how we are misusing creation.” He explains why this misuse is an important spiritual matter when teaching, “our actions define who we are.” He also reveals his knowledge of the link between violence to animals and interpersonal violence and confirms my argument on the negative soteriological consequences for humans: If you are violent to an animal, you can easily be violent to human beings…Everything is connected…It is covered in the teachings of the virtues. If there is any weakness in the person, evil will enter and this will be shown against the little children, the defenceless women and against the animals…I understand that there is research that shows this to be so.

Abuse to animals is again linked to sin, spiritual weakness and evil entering into the perpetrator of such acts. 13 This identification of the inherent sin and evil in the mistreatment of animals, not only echoes the earlier comments by Met. Kallistos and other theologians, it also draws our attention to my arguments concerning the soteriological implications for those who abuse or misuse animals. There is also confirmation that we

 11

Stylios, in Harakas, “Ecological Reflections,” 55. See also Gregorios, The Human Presence: An Orthodox View of Nature; Louth, Maximus the Confessor; Nesteruk, Light from the East: Science, Theology, and Eastern Orthodox Tradition; Bordeianu, “Maximus and Ecology”, though the implications for animals are not specifically explored. 13 ‘The Link’ is now one of the key indicators for psychiatrists and police in identifying a deeply disordered personality. For further details see Gullone. 12

200

Chapter Seven

may find suitable material for the formulation of a theological position on animal suffering in biblical and patristic teachings on the virtues. Importantly he looks beyond the cruel acts to the character of the perpetrators who, instead of displaying a conscience of virtue, are described as: bad human beings...because their violence and mistreatment of animals means that they have complexes, they have problems...We ask, who are these people and how could they do such things? The answer is because they have a bad heart. It is a psychological and psychopathological problem…Again it is a spiritual thing.

Not only is animal suffering a tragedy for the animals and the real insult to God14 it is identified as spiritually harmful. I remind the reader of my earlier question relating to the soteriological implications of those working in animal industries where cruelty and suffering is inherent in some of the systems used. Remembering H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching that harm “even out of negligence” is an “evil and a grave sin” we might ask again if the excuse that animal suffering was simply an inevitable part of one’s employment will hold weight under God’s scrutiny and judgement. Bishop Isaias also supports my point on the usefulness of the virtues in the formulation of an animal theology when teaching on a “conscience of love”: We have a conscience given to us by love, initiated by God who is love and we must use it to love all things…Our aim is to keep our conscience clear and to have a good heart. This is why Jesus Christ said that if you want to inherit the kingdom of God you must become like the children. Children have clear hearts and clear consciences without destructions. They have not learnt bad things, they have no hatred and they have no vested interests.

His teaching on being free of “vested interests” echo patristic teachings, H. A. H. Bartholomew’s frequent comments on this point15 and Met. Kallistos’s teaching on the vested interests and “evil profit” of



14 This alludes to St. Silouan’s comment that friendship with animals is a perversion of the order established by God and contrary to the state of man. See Gschwandtner (2012) and Hamalis (2013) for commentary on these “scandalous” comments. 15 Bartholomew speaks of vested interests, which includes not only the few who own the majority of wealth on the planet but also in the context of individual selfishness, see Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 371-2.

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

201

intensive farming industries. They are also applicable to situations where vested interests or individual passions cause unnecessary suffering to millions of animals. Example being the chemical and pharmaceutical industries where animal testing is cheaper than devising alternative methods 16 and the fur industry, where animals are kept in terrible conditions and in some cases skinned alive in order to increase profits and to meet the sinful passion of vanity.17 Challenging questions again arise. What are the soteriological implications for those who profit financially from such harmful practises, for those who work in these industries, or who know of the abuse yet continue to eat, use or wear the products? Moving now to our individual relationships with animals, I have already noted the ambiguity in Eastern Orthodox teachings concerning our relationship with animals and Bishop Isaias addresses the point: If you are a good Christian, you will love the animals and they will love you back and there are many books showing this through the lives of the early saints as I said before. You cannot find a Holy man who has mistreated animals. 18

He adds further clarity when linking this loving behaviour to our role as Image of God and in so doing, lends support to the suggestion that a loving, compassionate relationship with animals is entirely acceptable and the Image of God a potentially pregnant theme for the subject of animal suffering: we need to be kind to animals because it is who we are, we are made in the Image of God and we must reflect the love of God in His kindness to all things and because they belong to God.

The bishop expresses a positive view on contemporary pet ownership and supports this stance by reference to earlier periods when many “Holy people” whose hearts and consciences were pure had “very good relationships with animals”: Not one of them did anything wrong to the animals or to nature…people who have a clear conscience can become more approachable to animals; can have a closer relationship with animals because the animals recognise the love that is reflected in their life.

 16

See Linzey and Linzey, The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments report on animal experimentation. See also Chapter Nine. 17 See Figures 1-8, 9, 10. 18 There is evidence of abuse by one priest, Cyprus Mail, 1st Aug 2008. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Priest+fined+for+beating+puppy.-a0182058122.

202

Chapter Seven

His teachings on the spiritual connection between created beings and the positive nature of loving and compassionate relationships with animals is I suggest a better reflection of this aspect of Eastern Orthodox tradition than that outlined earlier by St. Silouan. Moving now to one of the most intractable of animal suffering issues and one reason why animal protectionist organisations exist, is the overpopulation of certain species of animals on the planet and the lack of suitable homes. Animal protection organisations throughout the world, the United Nations and the World Health Organization report on controlling animal populations, advocate neutering as the most effective way of reducing and controlling the numbers of unwanted and stray animals. As previously stated, one of the most common excuses used for not neutering animals is because ‘the Church’ forbids it. Bishop Isaiah again made it very clear that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not forbid neutering. He professed his willingness to make a public statement on this point. In early 2016, he hosted a seminar, which included a veterinarian giving advice on the positive effects of neutering. 19 In addition, the bishop’s offer to provide Church land in his Diocese for a neutering clinic is another example of how the Church can play a valuable role in providing practical solutions to this serious problem.20 Bishop Isaiah also gives clarification on the subject of animal souls. Initially he informs us that Orthodoxy teaches that all creatures have a soul and explains that this means that each created being has a ‘life-force’. He agrees with Met. Kallistos’s statement that there is no Eastern Orthodox dogma on this subject. however, he does opine that in general “the Church does differentiate between a human and animal soul.” The key point to emphasise here is that Bishop Isaias confirms Met. Kallistos’s teaching that regardless of the status of an animal’s soul, this should not be used as the criteria for the way we treat animals as it “only confuses the matter.”21 Again, it is worth repeating his succinct clarification of the problem: What we seem to have is some people taking a bit of philosophy and a bit of theology and they mix them up and come up with something which is not Orthodox. Let me be clear. Animals are the creation of God and we

 19

For an article on this event, see panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org. At his first meeting with leaders of some of the animal protection groups in Cyprus in 2014, the Bishop offers land for a neutering clinic. Land, or rather the inability to afford to buy land is one of the greatest problems for animal protection groups across the world. He was clear that the animal charities must provide the funding. 21 What Met. Kallistos refers to as a “red herring,” which is something that distracts us from the real issue. 20

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

203

should treat them with respect and not be cruel to them and what kind of soul they have has no part of that discussion. We should not be involved in this type of argument; it should not be used, as it only serves to confuse what should be very clear. We should not be cruel to animals, it is that simple. We should not be cruel, we should love. 22

This is a crucial affirmation of Fr. S’s and Met. Kallistos’s teachings on animal souls being irrelevant to the way they should be treated. Bishop Isaiah rejects the outdated assumptions and proffers a more informed and inclusive worldview. He advises us that he has conducted his own research into this field and acknowledges the scientific evidence that many species have “excellent reason”. This he suggests is to be viewed positively as it helps us see the interconnectedness between all created beings, which in turn should engender better treatment for animals. The question again arises regarding the implications for Eastern Orthodox theological teachings, which are based upon the flawed premise of the irrationality of animals if this is proven not to be the case.23 This in turn brings us back to the potentially negative consequences for those in authority who are either indifferent to the issue or choose not to deal with it. When I raised the issue of a report on cruel and abusive treatments in abattoirs in Cyprus 24 Bishop Isaiah teaches that all people and organisations are expected to follow animal protection laws, with the rider that any killing “should be done without pain and suffering to the animals.” There is convincing evidence that this cannot be achieved in many areas of the animal food production industries. 25 He extends this

 22

E.g., Descartes ‘reasoned’ that due to their irrationality, animals were unable to feel pain or suffer. For a survey of this point, see Cochrane, An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, 21. 23 Chapters Two and Three discuss the possibility that animals have a type of spiritual knowledge of God in that they praise and worship God. They also have the potential of a direct relationship with God. See also Chapter Nine. 24 Available at http://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2013/05/Illegal-slaughter-of-animalsin-Cyprus. See also the discussion regarding slaughter in the section on Noah and sacrifice in Chapter Two and the earlier reference to the recent Daily Mail exposé of two Muslim slaughter men in the UK. 25 Animals are quite aware of the death that surrounds them. I recently met a slaughter man from such an establishment in England, who arguably have best practice in this field and he volunteered and confirmed that the animals were “shaking with fear” whilst queuing to be killed. Knight discussed this in a recent unpublished lecture at Winchester University (7th Dec 2016) and two references from that lecture are available from Animal Aid (2016) “The ‘humane slaughter’ myth” is available at http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/slaughter /ALL///. See also Chapter Nine.

204

Chapter Seven

thought when describing those who do not follow animal welfare laws as “bad people” which indicate that they too are spiritually weak and guilty of sin. The soteriological implications for those who work in animal industries such as abattoirs, farming and laboratories who contravene animal welfare laws seem clear. 26 Questions arising here are, once we become aware of the suffering in such industries are we to ignore it. Are we to act in some way to prevent it? Could we perhaps use the biblical teaching in 1 Cor. 8:13 to guide us? Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat.

Sakharov (1991) indicates this is possible, for he informs us that: Monks living in communities, and hermits in the desert, do not, as a rule, eat meat, in accordance with the word of the Apostle “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.”27

By reducing our demand for animal food products, fur and other products that come from industries which cause immense suffering to millions of animals, we can reduce the overall suffering, if not the individual suffering of animals remaining within the systems. The same soteriological implications would presumably be applicable to those who break other animal protection laws such as those involved in illegal hunting. However, what of those who simply kill animals for fun? If we accept patristic teachings that hunting is an example of the “pomp of the devil” 28 and that Christ remembers and recapitulates all creatures 29 there would appear to be soteriological implications for those who kill animals for pleasure rather than for food, even if there are laws giving the right to do so. Bishop Isaiah is very clear: If you hunt you must eat it! Hunting for food is one thing, hunting-killing for fun is another, it is a misuse and a sin. 30



26 “Vets call for unrestricted access to slaughterhouse CCTV.” Available at https://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Newsroom/Newsreleases/Vets-call-unrestricted-access-slaughterhouse-CCTV/. One must remember that not all slaughterhouses are registered or licensed and not all countries have animal protection laws. 27 Sakharov, St. Silouan, 95. 28 See St Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis, 1:6. 29 Irenaeus, Against Heresies; Lk 2:6. 30 Extract from a meeting in May 2014. BirdLife Cyprus is part of BirdLife International whose work in part is trying to stop the illegal hunting of many

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

205

Bishop Isaias differentiates between hunting for food and killing for fun and pleasure, describing the latter as “a misuse and a sin.” This teaching on ‘recreational’ or ‘sport’ hunting is of considerable importance for not only the potential effect on the lives of millions of animals and species protection but also for its warning on the soteriological implications for the millions who partake in these practices. His teachings echo those of St Cyril of Jerusalem who warned us that hunting is a soulsubverting spectacle. The bishop’s choice of language raises another point. So often, those who promote or indulge in sport, trophy or recreational hunting will use language that attempts to soften or disguise the reality. Animals are ‘despatched’ or ‘taken’ and this language distracts us from the stark reality that some people kill animals for pleasure/fun. Bishop Isaias’s honest language also reminds us of St Gregory of Nyssa’s uncompromising language and teaching on “use, do not misuse.” 31 Another ‘ancient’ voice is that of St. Irenaeus who restates biblical teachings that just because something is lawful, it is not necessarily expedient and that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness.”32 Bishop Isaias echoes not only the wisdom of St. Cyril and other patristic voices who identify the inherent evil at the heart of hunting but also the canonical teachings presented earlier. Canon Law bans priests and laity from attending hunts and priests are deposed if they disobey.33Balsamon describes the practice as “wickedness”: Those who have once sinned deliberately are admonished to cease. If they are not willing to obey, they are to be deposed. But those who are constantly engaged in this wickedness, if they are clerics, they must be deposed from their clerical pace, if laymen they must be cut off.34

Bishop Isaias’s teachings are therefore further examples of the less prominent tradition existing across the centuries, of an inclusive theology



species such as songbirds by the use of mist-nets and liming in Cyprus; a practice, which also has links with organised crime. Official figures relating to legal and illegal bird hunting are available at http://www.birdlifecyprus.org. The Bishop has established a Skeet shooting club in his area to provide the hunters with an alternative to killing animals. This is another example of his proactive role in species conservation and an example of the ‘dispensation model’ mentioned in Chapter Two. 31 Gregory of Nyssa, On Love for the Poor, 198. 32 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.37:4, quoting St. Paul. 33 Canon 51 of the Quinisext Council. 34 Balsamon’s notes to this Canon in, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, CANNPNF 2-14.

206

Chapter Seven

that would not tolerate the death of an animal for the pleasure and passions of humans. There is another related problem, which is also widely ignored, and I have touched upon its existence when discussing the role of the saints in Chapter Four. There are regular articles in the Cypriot media about the abuse of individuals who oppose the hunters, either when they hunt illegally out of season 35 or when they shoot close to houses and people. The hunter views any criticism as an assault against the hunter’s freedom and tradition, even if that destroys or diminishes the freedom of others, with some reacting with violence against their critics. This abusive behaviour is another example of the previously outlined link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence. 36 Because of his comments, it is possible to predict that the bishop will draw heavy criticism from the hunting lobby and Game Fund – the ‘vested interests’ in this case.37 However, Bishop Isaias’s statement will also have a great deal of support and gives voice to the large number of Cypriots who oppose hunting but are too afraid of retribution from the hunters to comment openly. This situation illustrates the important role of the Church in defending and protecting human and non-human beings from those who would abuse them. Bishop Isaias is obviously aware of the potential tension that his teachings will create and to address this he has shown great wisdom in undertaking another initiative, the provision of a Skeet club in his area, as a way of weaning the hunters off the brutal alternative. This provision is a modern example of using dispensations as a way of protecting God’s non-human created beings by limiting the misuse of human freedom in order to guide the sinful human creature back to salvation.38 Bishop Isaiah’s teaching not only reflects patristic teachings on the virtues, controlling the passions and exhibiting compassion and love for non-human beings, but also accords with the biblical teachings on the theme of animal protection. It is an example of what could be an Eastern Orthodox theological position on hunting and of what is achievable in practical terms, in the reduction of animal suffering and conservation of

 35

Season is a term not applicable in Cyprus where illegal hunting occurs daily. See Gullone, Animal Cruelty, 124-5 for observed behaviour and violence exposure. 37 These organizing bodies tend to receive their funds from the licenses/permits they grant to hunters. This raises issues of ‘vested interests’ and independence and questions their ability to maintain as their primary focus, the interests of wildlife. 38 As previously noted, this is an example of how the Church can take a proactive role in species conservation whilst continuing its mission to save human souls. 36

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

207

the environment; particularly if the Church adopted the practice advocated by St. Melangell and the Prince of Powys39 by banning hunting on Church land. Of equal importance is the repetition of teachings that warn humans of their sinful misuse of animals and the soteriological implications for those who kill animals for recreational or trophy hunting. It is therefore another topic among many where the Eastern Orthodox Church could play a crucial role. The challenging subject of animal experimentation was not part of the animal protectionist questionnaire and did not therefore arise in the interviews relating to that study. However, I include here part of a (2015) conversation with Bishop Isaias in which I discussed the C. C. S. and confessed that it was difficult trying to condense the material I had obtained on the cruelty and suffering of animals in the food industry, let alone broaching the issue of animal experimentation. 40 Bishop Isaias’s response was immediate and clear: That is simple, if there are alternatives, they must use them.

I confess to being taken aback at the simplicity and effectiveness of this teaching. I do not mean to suggest that this is simplistic or naive, but rather that when we cut away the sophisticated and lengthy arguments on this theme and search for a basic truth, we find that it is not necessarily those arguments, which have the answer, but this simple and honest teaching - if there are alternatives we must use them. This is a difficult and emotive subject, often discussed in ignorance, and one of increasing concern within the scientific community regarding the effectiveness of this modelling. I discuss this more fully in Chapter Nine. I can however state here that it is a common belief that the case for using animals in experiments for the good of humankind is proven – this is not the case. It is a subject of fierce debate within the scientific community. A significant factor in this debate is the absence of a database similar to that found in human trials. As a result, there is needless replication of experiments, suffering and death. 41

 39

See Chapter Four. See Aaltola, Animal Suffering, 34-45; also, BUAV, http://www.buav.org/undercover-investigations/secret-suffering. 41 As a backdrop to this discussion, refer to the images and websites in Chapter One. See also Chapter Nine. Other useful research may be found in the National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, Committee on Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals report, “Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals”; Knight, (2011) and his website which specifically deals with primate research, available at: http: 40

208

Chapter Seven

Finally, on the subject of education, the C. C. S. identified both the lack and need for education programs and material at priestly and pastoral levels. Bishop Isaiah acknowledges the lack of seminary education on the ethical treatment of animals and believes the Ecumenical Patriarch would support such programmes. In order to address this issue, he offered another practical initiative by undertaking to provide such a programme for the priests in Cyprus. 42 It is important to note that these practical initiatives begin to address the frequent criticism in modern commentaries concerning the lack of practical guidance from senior theologians. 43 He also suggests that one of his priests will undertake a Master’s Dissertation on the subject in order to provide material in Greek for the seminary project.44 He will present this to the Holy Synod in Cyprus for inclusion in their seminary training programmes. Practical suggestions such as these begin to address the calls made over the decades by H. A. H. Bartholomew and others for education programmes on the theme of ‘right use’ or ‘ethical use’ of the environment. Bishop Isaiah’s initiatives widen this brief to include our treatment and relationships with animals and are examples of how we can unify spiritual education and practical needs. They are I submit also examples of the spiritual imagination mentioned by Met. Kallistos.

Chapter Seven Summary This chapter has provided further material for an Eastern Orthodox theological position on animal suffering. When combined with the teachings of Met. Kallistos, we have recognition from both hierarchs of a lack of engagement from the Eastern Orthodox Church on the issues of



//www.animalexperiments.info; Nurses Movement for Responsible Medicine, available at: http://www.nmrm.org. For a discussion on the identification of suffering of laboratory animals see the latest report on this issue by Linzey and Linzey (2017) which includes over two hundred and fifty reports, articles, research papers etc., which is sufficient enough material from which to formulate an informed opinion on this subject. 42 Knowing the subject of my PhD, my professional background in teaching and experience in animal protection, the Bishop asked me to write an outline for a course, which is available in Appendix B. 43 Whilst these initiatives are to be welcomed, it was prudent to point out that those involved in such a scheme would need training in a wide variety of protectionist issues if the group were to be authoritative and effective. See Appendix B for a framework for this group. 44 Fr. Theotokis was happy to undertake this task and has recently received his Masters from Athens University.

Interview with Bishop Isaias of Tamasou and Orinis

209

animal suffering and protection and both proffer reasons why this may be so. They inform us that the Eastern Orthodox tradition has always had a reverence for animals and been sensitive to their suffering, welfare and protection. They are clear that their authority for this statement comes from biblical and patristic teachings on compassionate care and protection of animals and creation, traditional Orthodox prayers and the numerous examples of close friendships between saints and animals. They inform us that animals are part of God’s creation and our treatment of them is both a moral and spiritual issue. They also teach that animals are Holy, have their own dignity and we should treat them with reverence and respect. They confirm my argument that the way we treat animals is directly relevant to our reflection of God’s Image and the practice of the Christian life. We as Image are not to be cruel; we are to love all created beings who are ontologically connected to each other, God and us. Inflicting pain on animals, harmful farming practices and hunting for fun and sport are condemned as sins. We have a rare teaching on animal experimentation, suggesting as a base point, that we must use alternatives when available. As such, both hierarchs affirm H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching that the misuse of animals along with the misuse of any part of creation is a spiritual matter, a type of evil and a sin, with negative soteriological implications for humans. In their acknowledgment that animals have rationality, intelligence, etc and that they feel pain and suffer, both hierarchs stand in stark contrast to philosophers and theologians who suggest otherwise. Crucially, they confirm that the status of an animal’s soul should have nothing to do with the way animals are treated. I submit that these important teachings indicate that the Eastern Orthodox Church ought to review teachings that were influenced by the flawed science, philosophy and theology of the past. It would be helpful in this regard for the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church to acknowledge its tradition of challenging, rejecting and/or adapting past teachings when errors are evident. This continues until today as evidenced in Met. John’s call for the Church to “revise radically her concept of sin.”45 They also support H. A. H. Bartholomew and Met. John’s calls for education on environmental issues and advocate incorporating teachings on compassionate care and treatment of animals into those discussions. Both support practical initiatives by the Eastern Orthodox Church to promote animal protection and proffer suggestions to facilitate this

 45

Met. John, “Foreword.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, viii.

210

Chapter Seven

process. The teachings from the two hierarchs and the earlier teaching from the priest have established a benchmark position for our treatment, behaviour and relationship with animals. There is now clarity on many aspects of the animal suffering theme, which did not exist prior to this work and include teachings that will have profound implications for the traditional Eastern Orthodox Christian theological view of animals. I have listed below what I consider some of their most important teachings: x Animal suffering and protection are theological, spiritual and moral issues. x Loving and compassionate relationships with animals are viewed in a positive light. x The status of animal souls should be irrelevant to the way they are treated. x There is acknowledgement that animals share human characteristics and capabilities such as rationality, cognition, language and intelligence. x Animals feel pain and suffer. x Inflicting pain on animals is a sin. x The abuse of animals, which includes hunting for fun, is a sin with soteriological implications for humanity. x There is a tradition that animals will be saved. x Placing profit before the needs of animals is condemned. x Education on animal suffering should be included in seminary courses. x Scientists are to use alternatives to animal experimentation where available. The potential ramifications of such acknowledgements on the dominant theological and philosophical teachings of the past are obvious. If we combine the hierarchs’ teachings with the biblical and patristic material presented earlier, they offer a platform and framework grounded in Eastern Orthodox Tradition to begin discussions on the formulation of an Eastern Orthodox theological position, which specifically addresses the suffering of animals and our treatment and relationships with them. Furthermore, if our leaders promote and practice this theology, I advance the opinion that this is likely to result not only in the immediate and considerable reduction in animal suffering but also in the salvation of many human souls. To supplement this material still further, the following chapter presents further contemporary Eastern Orthodox commentary.

CHAPTER EIGHT MODERN VOICES

Overview Chapter Eight continues to explore some of the contemporary material that can help establish a theological position, which specifically deals with the subject of animals suffering. It widens the debate to include topics such as ethology, economics and human rationality; sin and evil; extending our concepts of community, justice and sin; education and the role of the Church in addressing this important subject.

Animal Science Since the 1960s there have been important developments in several fields of ‘animal’ science, with Ethology being of particular significance for it has challenged the traditional philosophical and theological views that certain abilities such as language, cognition, consciousness and rationality, were unique to human beings.1 As noted, it is now generally accepted that differences are more of degree rather than absence, yet despite the overwhelming evidence available to us today, some still question animals’ ‘theory of mind’ or capacity for higher level reasoning.2 This is to be expected but I submit, to be rejected. In addition to the everincreasing evidence of non-human animal capacities of reasoning, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that many species of animals suffer physical pain and psychological distress. Whilst some scientific data is used in the work of many Western theologians and ethicists working on the subject of animal suffering, this science is rarely explored by the few Eastern Orthodox theologians who, partially at least, comment on animal

 1

There are many works dealing with this subject, e.g. Allen and Bekoff, Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology and Rollin, The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. 2 Wynne, Do Animals Think? Due to the corpus of scientific material proving the opposite case, I find Wynne’s conclusions unconvincing.

212

Chapter Eight

suffering. As noted, this scientific evidence has implications for the allocation of irrational and non-eternal souls for non-human animals.

Economics: Human Rationality and Self Interest I have noted that the contemporary debate on the environment 3 highlights how theological anthropocentricism and its inherent separationist ethos, has played a large part in our exploitation, abuse and sin regarding the natural world. 4 Whilst scholars such as Khalil (1978, 1990) 5 and Birch, Eakin and McDaniel (1990) 6 countered White’s arguments using traditional biblical, patristic texts and traditions, other scholars such as Sherrard (1987a)7, Economou (1990), Zizioulas (2003, 2015)8 and H. A. H. Bartholomew, (2011) 9 have, to an extent, agreed with White’s analysis. Mantzarides (1988)10 comments on the conflict between ecological and economic interests and is developed and emphasized by theologians such as H. A. H. Bartholomew, Zizioulas and Chryssavgis. They are however, criticized by Butler (2013)11 who views their criticisms

 3

Arguably, the contemporary non-Orthodox debate on the Church’s responsibility for the environmental crisis began with White’s article in 1967 “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” 4 Met. John, “Foreword.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, vii-ix. 5 Khalil cited the traditional Orthodox arguments of humans as the microcosm of creation and to its ascetic heritage to refute White’s claims. Khalil, “The Ecological Crisis: An Eastern Christian Perspective.”; also, “For the Transfiguration of Nature: Ecology and Theology.” 6 Birch, Eakin and McDaniel, Liberating Life: Contemporary Approaches to Ecological Theology. 7 Sherrard argued that the ideology presented by Aristotelian philosophy espoused by Western Christian thought, to which the divine substance could not interrelate with or interpenetrate the material universe, paved the way for our modern scientific predicament. Sherrard, The Rape of Man and Nature; also, Chryssavgis, “A Tribute to Phillip Sherrard.” 8 Met. John, “Proprietor or Priest of Creation?”; “A Comment on Pope Francis’s Encyclical Laudato Si’.” 9 Bartholomew, “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation.” Available at http://www.ecpatr.org. 10 Mantzarides, in Harakas, “Ecological Reflections,” 53-4. 11 Butler and Morriss, Creation and the Heart of Man: An Orthodox Christian Perspective on Environmentalism, 4-11. He criticizes this aspect in specific works by these authors. See also his interview with Kevin Allen of Ancient Faith Radio for his obvious frustrations against ‘the East’, available at: www.ancientfaithradio.com/podcasts/aftoday/orthodoxy_and_the_environment.

Modern Voices

213

as examples of left, liberal, anti-western industrialization economics. In so doing, he gives an insight into the continuing cultural and political differences and influences within the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have also noted how historical influences resulted in the refusal to extend justice or mercy to animals, which in turn, determined our relationships and treatment of them. With this backdrop, it became increasingly easy to view animals as disposable life and units of production rather than sentient beings, where the animals’ natural behaviours are overridden in favour of increased profit. The combination of these factors has led to the immense suffering of God’s non-human creation. Economou’s (1989) 12 description of the misuse of technology as “war against nature” is certainly applicable to discussions on most areas of animal suffering within the animal industries. 13 Whilst the impact of economic factors upon animals is rare in Eastern Orthodox literature,14 traditionally it is linked to concerns for the poor 15 who are thought to suffer the greatest impact of environmental destruction. Hallman (1994)16 and Boff & Elizondo (1995) 17 are editors of earlier compilations of Western theological thought, which align with Eastern Orthodox scholars such as Mantzarides, Demetrios 1st and H. A. H. Bartholomew on this theme. In recent years, Eastern Orthodoxy theologians and ethicists have engaged in discussions on our misuse of our environment yet there are few comments on our misuse of animals. Yet there is progress for, more recently, the Chryssavgis & Foltze (2013) compilation contains many articles that have reference to animals and whilst this is extremely encouraging, the majority of these are still general in nature.18 Boff states that originally, economics was not a “technique for unlimited growth but for rational management of scarcity.” He argues that the purpose of ecological economics is to balance the needs of humans and the earth “with a view to the sustainability and quality of life of the world,



12 Economou, “Orthodoxy and Ecology.” See also, the series of articles in the same name in Ekklesia 1989 (5):188-192; (6):231-234; (7):280-283; (8)223-326. 13 Intensive farming; ‘farming’ for fur; killing for fun; using animals for drug development or product testing. 14 Keselopoulos is one example and discussed presently. 15 This is a common theme in the early Church e.g. St. John Chrysostom On Repentance and Almsgiving. 16 Hallman, EcoTheology. 17 Boff & Elizondo, Ecology and Poverty; Ecology and Liberation. 18 Chryssavgis and Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration. Animals are included in lists within several discussions but detailed discussion on the subject of animal suffering is not evident.

214

Chapter Eight

of persons, and of other beings in nature.” expresses similar views:

19

H. A. H. Bartholomew

We reject any form of “economic reductionism,” the reduction of the human being merely to homo oeconomicus. In brief, we resist the transformation of society into a gigantic market, the subordination of the human person to the tyranny of consumerism.20

Arguments on our misuse of the environment have been raging for several decades and yet evidence of our abuse of the natural world and the suffering of the animals within it is increasing year on year.21 Why? This may seem a foolish question but, unless we get to the root of why we fail to change our behaviour, then the destruction of large parts of our planet and many of the life forms on it, is inevitable. I have noted how the supposition that irrationality in non-human animals has been, and continues to be, a causal factor in animal suffering22 and here I proffer the suggestion that we might need to review the ‘rational’ argument from the human perspective in order to better understand our inability to change our destructive behaviours. In so doing, we may be able to target our messages more effectively. We have always believed that humans primarily act with intelligence and logic. This leads us to the assumption that humans will be able to see the logic in our arguments and act accordingly. To challenge this premise might seem a radical statement but I support it with Kahneman’s Nobel Prize winning research, which identified the effects of cognitive biases on human behaviour.23 He states that in the majority of cases humans do not act rationally:

 19

Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, 134. Bartholomew, “Creation Care and Ecological Justice.” 21 See “Joint Message on the World Day of Prayer for Creation” from the Vatican and from the Phanar, 1 September 2017. 22 See also Chapter Nine. 23 Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for Economics for his research into Cognitive Bias, which led to the development of a completely new branch of economics. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. He states that people place too much confidence in human judgement. His work examined how we make decisions and found we have two ways of thinking, System One = Intuition and System Two = Logical. He proved that the mind was not like a computer carefully weighing up logical and rational factors but instead, operates in ‘Intuition’ mode which is responsible for our immediate opinion/decisions, ‘thoughtless’ acts and importantly, we appear to have little or no control over the bias. In addition, System Two tends to provide rationalisations for our beliefs i.e. we think we make decisions by System Two but more frequently, it is System One. 20

Modern Voices

215

We like to think we are smart, rational, conscious creatures-this is mostly a delusion...We know we have one hundred and fifty Cognitive Biases. We are riddled with them and Present Bias Focus is when we focus on now and do not think much about the future and is responsible for the overeating, smoking, unprotected sex etc.24

When we consider the centuries of arguments against animals being awarded justice and mercy because of their irrationality, this is deeply ironic. Kahneman’s research helps to answer the puzzling question of why we continually fail to change our behaviours despite decades of warnings on environmental destruction, species extinction and global warming. He is however not the first to recognise irrational thoughts or behaviours in humans. Patristic teachings from St. Irenaeus and St. Basil through to modern teachings on our ‘confused thinking’ recognize humanity’s sickness through sin that leads to a darkened heart and ultimately to: confusion of its own intellectual reasoning which gives rise to self-centered love, injustice and aggression in relation to others. Herein is the root cause of idolatry, injustice, exploitation and belligerence in humanity and the lack of peace among human beings.25

Sherrard (1992) also testified to our illogical reasoning. He warned that we had not grasped the urgency of our environmental situation. We continue instead: to blunder on along our present path of devastation in a kind of blindfolded nightmare…as if we are in the grip of some monstrous collective psychosis.26

Admittedly, H. A. H. Bartholomew advances a new “Theo-logical Logic” which replaces “the logic of convenience” and its utilization of the environment, which is “merely to supply our conveniences”;27 yet despite the continued repetition of logical messages by environmentalists, theologians, ethicists and conservationists the relentless abuse and

 24

BBC Horizon, “How You Really Make Decisions?” Limouris, Justice, Peace, 20. 26 Sherrard, Human Image, World Image. Chryssavgis acknowledges Sherrard as “the first Orthodox thinker to explore in depth the challenges of the ecological crisis” in, Chryssavgis & Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, 472. 27 Bartholomew, “Religion and Conservation.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 139-40. 25

216

Chapter Eight

exploitation of the environment and non-human animals continues. 28 If we fail to perceive the ‘logical’ arguments, it would appear necessary to look for other ways of promoting these important messages. What other options are available to us in order to bring about this urgently needed metanoia? H. A. H. Bartholomew has repeatedly called for humanity to change its moral code from one that is selfish, short-sighted and based on a theory of continual consumption, to one with a Eucharistic and aesthetic ethos of love, virtue, sacrifice, abstinence and purification of sin.29 He and others have also tried to approach the problem through the concepts of ‘lifting up’ creation in the Anaphora or through living ascetic lives as ‘Priests of Creation’. H. A. H. Bartholomew states that he has spared no effort in raising public awareness of sinful abuse and of the sense of arrogance in our failure to recognise when “enough is enough.” 30 This argument, as ‘right’ as it is, was outlined many decades ago yet as Sherrard noted, we continue to blunder our way towards the abyss. I do not state that such approaches are without merit, far from it, but perhaps the time has come to try a more direct approach. Using Kahneman’s research, I advance one possible approach, which utilizes both our weakness and the greatest vested interest of all, self-interest. 31 In essence, I believe that more individuals would change their behaviour if local priests taught on the negative soteriological consequences of our actions. I also believe that without such teachings, humans will continue to ignore 32 the cosmic implications of sin and continue to abuse their freedom. H. A. H. Bartholomew speaks to the point: Unfortunately, humanity has lost the liturgical relationship between the Creator God and the creation; instead of priests and stewards, human beings have been reduced to tyrants and abusers of nature.33



28 He has made practical attempts to effect positive change in his ‘Environmental Religion and Science’ summits and his engagement with the sciences gives us the authority to do the same. 29 Bartholomew, “Message of His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew for the day of prayer for the protection of the Environment.” 1st Sept 2015. 30 Bartholomew, “Prefatory Letter.” In Chryssavgis & Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, xi. 31 Basil recognises this possibility, Morison, St. Basil and his rule: a study in early monasticism. 32 This assumes that they understand the cosmic implications of sin. 33 Bartholomew, “The Orthodox Church and the Environment.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 364.

Modern Voices

217

We are all endowed with freedom and responsibility; all of us, therefore, bear the consequences of our choices in our use or abuse of the natural environment.34

His teachings and choice of language corroborate the argument that the abuse and exploitation of animals have consequences for not only the abused animals in the form of pain, fear and suffering but also soteriological implications for humankind. I also posit that in addition to those who directly perpetrate acts of cruelty and exploitation, those who know of such acts but are indifferent to them and those who know but shy away from trying in some way to alleviate the abuse, are in a sense giving tacit approval to that process and are accessories after the fact. A useful analogy here is the judgement and guilt of those who accept stolen goods. Essentially, we create the demand. In order to overcome our sins against animals we must endeavour not only to purify, consecrate and sanctify ourselves through kenosis, selfemptying and humility by living virtuous and violence-free lives, all of which we have heard numerous times before, we must also understand the soteriological consequences of animal abuse. I submit that the only institution that can offer this spiritual advice and teaching is the Church. The laity (and priests) ought to be taught that even if abuse is not directly inflicted by us, we are culpable via our demands for cheap animal food products; by our vanity in demanding fur when alternatives are available; by our demands for sporting activities or traditions that demand the incarceration or death of innocent creatures and by our demands for cures for the numerous ailments caused by our gluttony and individual selfish behaviours. This knowledge will only materialise if the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church include animal suffering in its education of its priests and, if the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its academics engage with the subject of animal suffering in their deliberations on sin and evil.

Sin and Evil Whilst Mantzarides (1988)35, Stylios (1989)36, Zizioulas (1989)37 and others refer to the sin in the abuse, misuse and exploitation of the



34 Bartholomew, “Address by His All Holiness during the Presentation Ceremony of the Sophie Prize.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 284. 35 Mantzarides, Introduction to Ethics, 105. 36 Stylios, “Man and Natural Environment.” 37 Met. John, “Preserving God’s Creation,” 1:2.

218

Chapter Eight

environment, comments on the sin of abuse, misuse and exploitation of animals such as those found in the ‘animal industries’ are rare. Yannaras (1984) 38 maintains that it is impossible to objectively define sin; although he acknowledges that sin in its various forms is humanity’s failure to transcend the rebellious impulse to existential autonomy in his natural individuality. H. A. H. Bartholomew gives more clarity when stating, “Sin has a cosmic dimension and cosmological impact”39; the “misuse of any part of creation is a sin”40, “a mortal sin”41 and an “unforgivable insult to the uncreated God”. 42 Such teachings ought therefore to apply to the misuse of animals who are part of that creation. Teachings on evil are equally important for this theme as they are for every other theological discussion on suffering. In his discussion on the guiding principle of compassion, Boff (1997) links evil with the ethical dimensions of responsibility and restraint: Evil is whatever harms and does away with beings or destroys the condition for their reproduction and development. 43

This definition helps us move from an environmental debate, which focuses on habitat, to one, which includes the creatures within it. By way of example, Harakas (1990)44 teaches that war is an example of evil. There is however, no mention of the suffering of animals used in testing the different types of chemical, nuclear and biological weaponry used in these evil wars. We are all aware of the recent world condemnation of the nerve agent Novichok on a British citizen and his daughter in the UK 45 and the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian war, yet we are silent on the use of animals in its development and testing. Is it possible to argue from



38 Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality, 173. This also has relevance for comments on Noah’s failure. 39 Bartholomew, “Creation Care and Ecological Justice.” https://www.patriarchate.org/-/creation-care-and-ecological-justice-reflections-byecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew. 40 Bartholomew, “A Rich Heritage.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 190, 360. 41 Bartholomew, “Thine Own From Thine Own.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 330. 42 Bartholomew, “Christmas Encyclical.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 126; also “Climate Change,” 349. 43 Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, 136; also, Boff and Elizondo, Ecology and Poverty: Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor; Ecology and Liberation. 44 Harakas, “The Integrity of Creation.” 45 2018. Novichok is a weapon of mass destruction and banned by law.

Modern Voices

219

Harakas’ teaching that the use of animals in testing the weaponry used in ‘evil’ wars is another example of evil? This may be so for he states: The microcosmic role of humanity in bringing about peace, even with the non-human creation, holds true in every conflict situation...peace must be restored between humanity and nature that will entail “a hard process of reconciliation”.46

This suggests that peace and reconciliation is not possible whilst we continue to allow sinful actions towards animals. Such an interpretation would certainly align with the aforementioned ancient voices who warned us that our actions resulted in harm to the environment. The Novichok incident is a modern example of those teachings. Patristic wisdom is also echoed in comments by Goodall (2015) at the Winchester Symposium on Hunting concerning the unsustainable commercial hunting of African wildlife (bushmeat) for food 47 and by H. A. H. Bartholomew and Zizioulas who recognise that whilst many will scoff at describing environmental problems as ecological evil: There are hardly any responsible scientists or politicians who would not agree with it. If we follow the present course of events the prediction of the apocalyptic end of life on our planet at least is not a matter for prophecy but of sheer inevitability. 48

There is however, little specific reference in Eastern Orthodoxy academic debate relating to the evil perpetrated against non-human animals such as that discussed by Rowland (2009)49 who uses one example of a ‘non-invasive’ clinical psychology experiment on dogs. Many believe that ‘non-invasive’ experiments do not cause harm to animals but a reading of the process involved in that experiment would quickly dispel that assumption. Despite the general lack of specific comment, there are Eastern Orthodox teachings applicable to this theme. For example, Met. Kallistos’s teachings on “evil profit” and the “immoral use” of animals in the intensive farming practices is equally applicable to other practices in the ‘animal industries’ and align with H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teachings

 46

Harakas, “The Integrity of Creation,” 77-8. Conference notes from video provided for the Winchester University’s Hunting Symposium on 28th November 2015, by Jane Goodhall on Hunting in Africa, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFcSZizooL63hyILbzM9Bflwi2fs0n37s 48 Met. John, “Preserving God’s Creation.” (Spring 1989): 1-5. 49 Rowland, “The Structure of Evil.” In Linzey, The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence, 201-205. See Chapter Nine. 47

220

Chapter Eight

on sin as an “unforgivable insult to the uncreated God”. H. A. H. Bartholomew identifies every act contributing to the destruction of the natural environment as a very serious sin and of particular significance for the argument on the soteriological implications of animal suffering is the following: Those who do evil acts and just as importantly, those who are indifferent to those evil acts, together with those who harm creation even out of negligence constitutes not simply an evil, but a grave sin.50

This supports my argument that the misuse of animals has negative soteriological implications not only to those who directly inflict pain and suffering on animals but also for those who are indifferent to that suffering or who know yet fail to act in order to prevent or reduce it. This should concern us. His teaching would also support the argument that those who abuse animals, even out of ignorance of animal welfare laws or responsible ownership criteria, are not absolved from their sins without genuine repentance. This should also concern us. Met. John speaks to the point and of the need for leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be involved: The Church must now introduce in its teaching about sin, the sin against the environment, the ecological sin. Repentance must be extended to cover also the damage we do to nature both as individuals and as societies. This must be brought to the conscience of every Christian who cares for his or her salvation.51

The question to ask here is if we believe the most effective method of bringing such teachings to the conscience of every Christian is through an occasional pronouncement by senior theologians in the hope that it will filter down to the laity or, if this message is more likely to reach that audience via knowledgeable priests in every local community. I believe the answer is obvious and that the need to educate our priests is of vital importance for the subject of animal suffering. That said I would certainly wish to have the priests taught the various Orthodox teachings in this work, such as this teaching from Met. John who recognises the potential material available: All this calls for what we may describe as an ecological asceticism. It is noteworthy that the great figures of the Christian ascetical tradition were

 50

“The Ascetic Corrective.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 24; also “Message of the Synaxis,” 201. 51 “Comments on Laudato Si’.”

Modern Voices

221

all sensitive towards the suffering of all creatures. The equivalent of a St. Francis of Assisi is abundantly present in the monastic tradition of the East. There are accounts of the lives of the desert saints, which present the ascetic as weeping for the suffering or death of every creature and as leading a peaceful and friendly co-existence even with the beasts. This is not romanticism. It springs from a loving heart and the conviction that between the natural world and ourselves there is an organic unity and interdependence that makes us share a common fate just as we have the same Creator.52

Such teachings from leading Eastern Orthodox theologians are tremendously important not only for the suffering animals but also for those who try to protect them and are sensitive to their suffering. For as we saw in the Cyprus Case Study and elsewhere, those who show compassion and mercy towards animals today are often accused of being difficult, sentimentalists, and/or indifferent to the suffering of humans. I have yet to see any evidence to support such claims. In fact, when we examine the research, the opposite is the case. 53 I have certainly met people who denounce the cruelty of humans but that is quite different to the charge of indifference to human suffering. Whilst H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teachings on repentance of sin often relate to the abuse of the poor, they too are equally applicable to discussions on the abuse and exploitation of animals: The word ‘repentance’ is misunderstood today, calling to mind a sense of guilt for sins that some people consider unimportant. By ‘repentance’, however, we imply those things that are more important than the transgression of law-namely, discernment and mercy, justice and compassion. The lack of a sense of justice leads to greed, domination, the exploitation of the weaker by the more powerful, the abundance of wealth for the strong and the extreme poverty of the weak. The lack of a spirit of

 52

“Comments on Laudato Si’.” For modern research see Flynn and Austin, “Traversing the gap between Religion and Animal Rights”; Sperling, Animal Liberators: Research & Morality; Nibert, “Animal Rights and Human Social Issues”; Nash, The Rights of Nature; Lansbury, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers & Vivisection in Edwardian England; Ranney, Channels of power. For research in earlier periods and historical overview see Owen, English Philanthropy, 1660-1960; I have already mentioned William Wilberforce the anti-slavery campaigner and founder member of SPCA in 1824 but should also add that he was also co-founder of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; also Lord Shaftesbury, anti-vivisectionist and child safety ‘activist’. 53

222

Chapter Eight compassion renders the soul indifferent to another person’s pain and prevents the development of those things that kindle a sense of justice.54

Met. John indicates his support of this suggestion when stating that if we were to facilitate a form of repentance for sins against creation, it would for him, be “the greatest reformation”.55 Such teachings not only reflect the patristic teachings in Chapters Two and Three such as St. Ephrem’s teaching that oppression is overcome by compassion, they also buttress my argument on the correlation between forms of human and animal exploitation. Such teachings draw our attention to the interconnectedness of creature suffering yet we must also recognise that repentance for sinful acts upon non-human animal beings will not be forthcoming without specific teachings on the subject by the leaders of our Church, its senior theologians and academics and local priests. It is also unlikely to occur if we do not attempt to define which actions are sinful, for we must be mindful that humans have a great capacity to justify even the evilest of actions. H. A. H. Bartholomew teaches that ecological evils have their root both in a “destruction of religious piety within the human heart”56 and a too narrow definition of sin in the individual’s sense of guilt or wrongdoing: Yet, sin also contains a cosmic dimension; and repentance from environmental sin demands a radical transformation of the way that we choose to live. 57

Calls for the widening of our concept of sin to include the abuse and exploitation of creation and of the need for transfigured lives have clear relevance for animal suffering. As ‘right’ as this teaching is, we must also recognise that an occasional Patriarchal statement, though important and welcome, is unlikely to be as effective as regular teachings from parish priests. H. A. H. Bartholomew also appears to substantiate the argument that changing our focus and examining situations or texts through a different

 54

Bartholomew, “Hunger and Poverty.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 371. The Green Patriarch, DVD. 56 Also, Limouris, Justice, Peace, 20, where the distorted heart is defined as the root cause of idolatry, injustice, exploitation and belligerence in humanity and the lack of peace among human beings. 57 Bartholomew, “The Orthodox Church and the Environment.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 360. 55

Modern Voices

223

lens opens theological space and the possibility of further revelation of equally valid truths: Our deep appreciation for the natural environment is directly related to the Orthodox sacramental dimension of life and the world…somewhat resembling a wide-angle lens that we can better appreciate the broader implications of such problems as the threat to ocean fisheries, the disappearance of wetlands, the damage to coral reefs, or the destruction of animal and plant life.58

Teachings on the wider implications of sin against the environment and animals not only echo my suggestions of the link between animal suffering and human salvation they also reaffirm specific teachings on other forms of abuse, such as those from St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the Council in Trullo (Quinisext) on the sins of hunting and horse racing.59 If we reflect upon the forms and level of evil and sin in our world today, it is understandable that many believe there is little hope of reducing any form of suffering. There is that possibility of course, for in order to reduce animal suffering, humans must recognize that any form of violence, any form of misuse or indifference is sinful. They also need to understand that how they treat nature, the creation and animals, is “a barometer” of our relationship with God and each other:60 We also pray for the cessation of every form of violence, which can only be overcome through the love promoted and provided by the “angel of great counsel,” the “prince of peace,” our Saviour Christ. 61

If we pray for the cessation of every form of violence, then presumably we cannot exclude any form of violence to animals, no matter how inconvenient this might be for us as individuals or societies. In essence, my argument is that the sin and evil of abuse, misuse and exploitation of animals are manifestations of the very same sin and evil perpetrated against children, women and men. This is evident in the link between

 58

Bartholomew, “The Orthodox Church and the Environment.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 361; also, “Toast given in New York,” 260; “Vespers for the Environment.” In Chryssavgis & Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, 395. 59 See also the Synod of Carthage, the Theodosian Codex and Justinian’s Pandektes, in Tsironi, Liturgy as Re-Enactment. I have previously mentioned problems with horse racing. 60 Bartholomew, “A Rich Heritage.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 190, 358. 61 Bartholomew, “Christmas Encyclical” 2014, Prot. No. 1377, available at htpp://www.ec-patr.org.

224

Chapter Eight

animal abuse and human interpersonal violence and in the extension of animal experimentation to human experimentation. H. A. H. Bartholomew has also made it clear that such teachings are relevant not only to those directly involved in the misuse of creation, but also to those who know but are indifferent to the resulting suffering and those who harm creation even out of negligence. I extend this teaching to include those who know and are concerned but fail to act to prevent or highlight the evil acts to the appropriate authorities. Having identified the sin and abuse in animal suffering, the next logical step is to have recognition and inclusion of the subject into seminary courses and theological and ethical discussions on human salvation.62

Extending Justice, Rights and Community Stylios (1989)63 suggests that we are to lead a “life of justice” which is interpreted by Harakas as “the avoidance of immoral profiteering, injustice and exploitation”. This aligns with Met. Kallistos’s teaching on “evil profits” and the “immoral use of animals” in the intensive farming industry.64 Harakas also states that justice is the “right ordering” of human nature 65 , where the inherent value of creation demand a responsible approach, “its proper treatment.”66 In this sense, Harakas shares similar views to Bonhoeffer (1971) 67 who states that duties flow from rights, which he accorded to the natural world. H. A. H. Bartholomew and Met. John express a similar view when they counsel us to extend our understanding of community, to be a voice to the rest of creation whose rights are violated 68 and to extend our love to the non-human world. 69 H. A. H. Bartholomew advocates extending justice “beyond one’s fellow human beings to the entire creation”: One of the more fundamental problems that constitute the basis of the ecological crisis is the lack of justice prevailing in our world…The

 62

Appendix B provides an outline framework for such courses. In Harakas, “Ecological Reflections,” 57. 64 Oxford interview (2014). 65 Summarized by Clement of Alexandria, as the “Harmony of the parts of the soul,” Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 4.26; also, Harakas, “The Integrity of Creation,” 76. 66 Harakas, “The Integrity of Creation,” 77. 67 Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 176. 68 Bartholomew, “Caretaker of the Environment.” 69 Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107; also, Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 297; Met. John, “Man as Priest of Creation.” 63

Modern Voices

225

liturgical and patristic tradition…considers as just, that person who is compassionate and gives freely, using love as his or her sole criterion. Justice extends even beyond one’s fellow human beings to the entire creation. The burning of forests, the criminal exploitation of natural resources…all of these constitute expressions of transgressing the virtue of justice. 70

His teaching on justice for the “entire creation” indicates that animals are included and in so doing he uses language normally associated with the ‘rights’ movements. It is interesting to note that this teaching was made in 1997 and yet it has not resulted in any controversy within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Such teachings are crucial for determining the ‘right’ use of animals and why the subject of animal suffering also has relevance not only for Eastern Orthodox theological debates on sin, but also for its discussions on practising the virtues: humility, mercy and justice. These are profound teachings which if taught by our priests in towns and villages would fundamentally alter our societies and the way we treat animals. The important questions arising here is what does justice mean for the non-human animal beings who suffer from abuse and exploitation? Just as importantly, who will decide? As we have noted, age-old discussions have used the teachings of a few ancient Greek philosophers to determine our definitions and applications of justice and mercy and animals have suffered greatly as a result. Many others and I would argue that it is time to review these teachings and use love as our sole criterion. For Christians, this guiding principle ought to be our reflection of the Image of an all-loving and compassionate God, who offers love, justice and mercy to all things. We find this approach in the teachings of H. A. H. Bartholomew, Met. John, Met. Kallistos and Bishop Isaiah. They offer a unification of theological and ethical thought, where compassion, coupled with the responsible use of freedom, extends to all creatures. However, whilst this extension of compassion, justice and rights is of great importance to the subject of animal suffering, the text above is another example of where animals are missing from lists of examples of exploitation and abuse. This needs to change if theological discussions on the sin of animal abuse and exploitation are to become a conscious reality within our societies. H. A. H. Bartholomew speaks to this point when counselling us to extend our

 70

Bartholomew, “Justice: Environmental and Human” composed as “Foreword” to proceedings of the fourth summer seminar at Halki in June (1997). In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 173; also, “Environmental Rights.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 260.

226

Chapter Eight

idea of who is included in our understanding of community, which in turn alerts us to God’s teachings on loving our neighbour: This sense of community obliges us to stand for and support the most vulnerable aspects of creation, those parts of the world that have no human voice and whose rights can easily be trampled. Who will speak for the way we treat the resources of our planet? The earth is a part of our flesh, inseparable from our story and destiny. For “everything that breathes praises God.” 71 The dignity and rights of human beings are intimately and integrally related to the beauty and, we would dare to say, the rights of the earth itself. After all, who will dare to speak for the voiceless resources of our planet? Who will step up to protect the silent diversity of its species? Will our generation accept responsibility for pushing our environment over the tipping-point?72

Again, language more associated with ‘rights’ movements rather than from Eastern Orthodox theologians is evidenced yet it expresses the inclusivity of the less dominant Eastern Orthodox tradition I have tried to outline throughout this work. However, I draw our attention to the term ‘resources’ which in and of itself is troublesome, for who is likely to extend justice, mercy and love to a resource? In the second quote ‘resources’ are mentioned separately to ‘species’ so perhaps there is a differentiation here but the language of ‘resource’ is both common, unhelpful and unnecessarily confusing.73 H. A. H. Bartholomew not only gives legitimacy to calls for Eastern Orthodox theological discussions on the subject of animal suffering, he also supports the suggestion that the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a significant role to play in reducing that suffering. Not only are we to live with a eucharistic and liturgical ethos74 he teaches that how we respond and treat those in need, “especially through the lifestyle we

 71

Ps 150.6; also, “Caretaker of the Environment,” available at: http://www.ecpatr.org. 72 Bartholomew, “Creation Care and Ecological Justice,” available at https://www.patriarchate.org/-/creation-care-and-ecological-justice-reflections-byecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew. 73 I discuss the importance of our use of language presently. 74 Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 98-103; also, Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 118, 270-1, 351.

Modern Voices

227

lead”, reflects how we worship God. 75 Importantly, he exhorts us to respond to nature: with the same delicacy, the same sensitivity and tenderness, with which we respond to a human being in a relationship.76

This extension to the normative understanding of caring relationships might seem a contemporary fashion yet as we noted in Chapters Two and Three this would be a misreading of Eastern Orthodox tradition. For example, his teaching reflects this compassionate teaching by St. Gregory, which stands in stark contrast to many of today’s practices: Are we not willing to shelter pigs and dogs under our roof...Look at the love that the peasant has for his calf…Even better, the Traveller washes his donkey’s hoofs with his own hands, brushes his back, carries out his dung and cleans the stable. 77

As previously noted, patristic commentaries on the poor, social justice and their cosmic implications are relevant to contemporary discussions not only on the fairer distribution of products and resources such as water and land but also for discussions on animal suffering, environmental degradation and human existence on the planet. H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching on extending whom we include into our community is another profound and important teaching for the subject of animal suffering. The continuing challenge is how to apply these teachings on extending our understanding of community, justice, rights and caring relationships with animals, to contemporary practices that result in animal suffering. If animals were truly to be included into our community and to be accorded ‘rights’ 78 we would firstly need to refrain from referring to them as ‘resources’ and recognise them as other examples of God’s created beings. Secondly, if animals were truly to receive justice, could we continue to justify for example, our present animal food production systems, which cause harm, suffering and death to millions? If we are to ‘speak for the voiceless’ we ought to be requesting drastic alterations to the animal food industries so that they favoured the sentient beings over the vested

 75

Bartholomew, “On the Theological and Spiritual Insights of Pope John Paul II.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 297. 76 Bartholomew, “On the Theological and Spiritual Insights of Pope John Paul II.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 297. 77 Gregory of Nyssa, On the Love of the Poor, 203. 78 An excellent discussion on this is Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights.

228

Chapter Eight

interests or “evil profit”. If animals were included into our community and to receive justice, rights and mercy, are we right to justify the testing of a variety of chemicals and industrial products on animals, many of whom suffer terribly and die in their millions each year, because this method is cheaper than developing humane alternatives?79 Presumably, animals also have the right not to be abused or exploited in other ways. Examples here would be the right of protection from hunters who kill for fun or the latest fashion, or protection from the loss of their freedom to satisfy human entertainment needs. These are inconvenient truths, yet necessary areas to consider and debate if we are to reduce animal suffering and effect real change in human hearts. None of this will be easy, for, as we have noted, there is acceptance of the gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice and of the difficulties in changing attitudes, habits and the ‘traditions of men’. 80 Despite these difficulties, I believe the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have the authority and responsibility to be a voice for the voiceless, in its stand against every form of sin and evil in the contemporary world.81

Image of God I have argued throughout this work that guidance in the form of righteous and virtuous behaviours lead us to loving and compassionate relationships with animals. This argument is based upon the traditional Christian understanding that as true Image, we should strive to extinguish all violence, sin and evil from our lives. I believe that God did not create His “very good” creation in order for it to suffer but rather, for all created beings to live in peaceful harmony in order to worship and praise God. We have learnt that God is neither distant, nor detached from His creation but a God ‘in relationship’ with “all things.” We are to rule in God’s loving, compassionate and merciful Image by reflecting these qualities in the way we treat creation. In H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching on Icons, he informs us of our heavenly vocation; of the need to live differently; to reject dismissive arrogance towards creation and to find different ways of resolving conflicts. 82 Importantly, he also teaches on our narrow interpretation of God’s Word:

 79

See Knight, Costs and Benefits. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:12. 81 Chapter Nine examines animal food production and the animal testing model. 82 Bartholomew, “Seeing the Word of God.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 280. 80

Modern Voices

229

We have refused to behold God’s Word in the oceans of our planet, in the trees of our continents, and in the animals of our earth.83

He asks why we ignore the wider implications of the Incarnation and why we fail to perceive created nature as the extended Body of Christ.84 In answering these questions, he refers back to patristic and biblical teachings on the significance and “cosmic proportions of divine incarnation”85 and in so doing, supports ancient and contemporary teachings on the significance of Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection for God’s nonhuman beings. In calling us to widen our understanding of community and to be a “voice” for the non-human creation, H. A. H. Bartholomew affirms patristic teachings that our love and compassionate care should extend to other creatures. He also affirms the ontological unity86 of created beings which recognizes their individual dignity, worth and agency. Douglas advises us that the Hebrew “love they neighbour” would equate in English to “cherish the stranger” which implies the taking care and provision for a beloved other. In this context we might better understand the significance of why “love thy neighbour” (Lev 19:18) is the second commandment, for without that genuine cherishing of the other, evil is allowed to grow unchecked throughout the world. 87 H. A. H. Bartholomew also teaches that all creation also requires “an appropriate veneration”88: If the earth is sacred, then our relationship with the natural environment is mystical or sacramental…it contains the seed and trace of God…from this belief in the sacredness and beauty of all creation, the Orthodox Church articulates its crucial concept of cosmic transfiguration. 89

This mutual ontology has relevance for discussions on the sanctification and salvation of animals which ought to influence our treatment of animals in the ‘animal industries’ and elsewhere. If animals

 83

Bartholomew, 280. Bartholomew, 280. 85 Bartholomew, “Discerning God’s Presence in the World.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 345. 86 Bartholomew, “Message from Ecumenical Patriarchate.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 407-408, No. 5. 87 Muff’s argument is that such volitional metaphors convey specific legal ideas of free and uncoerced willingness, in Douglas, Leviticus, 43-44. Schochet informs us of the Jewish tradition of including animals in this commandment, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition, 263. 88 Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 90. 89 Bartholomew, 92-3. 84

230

Chapter Eight

are sacred and are to be saved, what are the soteriological implications for us if we allow violent and abusive practices to continue without comment? He refers to this as a “deep ecology” that is “inextricably linked with deep theology”: “Even a stone,” writes Basil the Great, “bears the mark of God’s Word. This is true of an ant, a bee, and a mosquito, the smallest of creatures. For He spread the wide heavens and laid the immense seas; and He created the tiny hollow shaft of the bee’s sting.” 90 The fish, then, is a soteriological statement of faith…Therefore, any misuse or abuse of fishing and fisheries relates in a personal and profound way to Christ Himself. It leaves a scar on the very Body of Christ Himself.91

H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching here lends support to the earlier question and warning that in our cruelty and in the inflicting of pain to animals, we may continue to inflict suffering on Christ. His profound teachings have obvious implications for our treatment of all forms of animals. The misuse of fish comes in a variety of ways. One third of the world’s fish-catch is fed to farmed fish, pigs and poultry. It is also worth noting that 50,000 salmon can occupy one sea cage. In order to keep fish fresh for sushi the fish are repeatedly stunned by electrocution throughout their journey back to port.92 Not only do we have scientific evidence that fish and some other sea creatures feel pain, there is now evidence that some fish use tools. As noted this indicates a level of intelligence, creativity and problem-solving capabilities.93 It is likely therefore that they too are aware of their suffering. What then are the practical and soteriological implications for those who enjoy angling and ‘sport’ fishing? His teachings also echo Met. Kallistos’s teaching that as Image of God we ought to include into our circle of compassion, not only the cute animals

 90

Bartholomew, “Address before the Twelfth Ordinary General Assembly of the Roman Catholic Synod of Bishops.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 281; also, “Ecumenical Imperative: A Common Responsibility.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 261. 91 Bartholomew, “The Sacredness of Fish.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 300-1. Scotland's fish farming creates as much nitrogen as yearly sewage from 3.2 million people; also, Lymbery, Farmageddon and Compassion in World Farming research available at http://www.ciwf.org.uk/research/?page=2. 92 This method was used by an Orthodox friend’s shipping fleet when I lived in the Seychelles. 93 David Attenborough, Blue Planet Two, BBC, TV.

Modern Voices

231

but also those who are less so.94 This is extremely challenging. Whilst it is easy to include dogs, cats, horses etc., we should also include fish and those described as pests, vermin or as sport. Such teachings limit our misuse of our freedom and ought to lead us to revisit and clarify Eastern Orthodox Church teachings that relate to the issue of human-animal separation, which, as we have noted, has led to the immense suffering of non-human beings. Again, H. A. H. Bartholomew speaks to the point: Thus, love for God, love for human beings, and love for animals cannot be separated sharply. There may be a hierarchy of priority, but it is not a sharp distinction of comparison.95

If our traditional understanding is that ‘all things’ are held in unity in Christ, are we not to challenge any argument that wishes to separate us from the rest of God’s creation? Just prior to this teaching, we are reminded of its spiritual context: The Desert Fathers knew that a person with a pure heart was able to sense the connection with the rest of creation and especially with the animal world...This connection is not merely emotional; it is profoundly spiritual in its motive and context. It gives a sense of continuity and community with all of creation while providing an expression of identity and compassion with it [and] recognition that…all things were created in Christ and in Christ all things hold together.96

This is reminiscent of St. John Chrysostom’s teaching on Holy people being kind to animals.97 As noted H. A. H. Bartholomew’s permission to “love” animals give further authority to Bishop Isaias’s teaching on a subject that I have previously noted is full of ambiguity. Some suggest we are to “love” and befriend animals98 whilst others view such behaviours as an “affront to God.” 99 H. A. H. Bartholomew and Bishop Isaias’s teachings reinforce my argument that just because humans are God’s regent100 this does not equate to a lessening of God’s love, compassion and mercy for the rest of His creation. The teaching that caring for animals is not merely an emotional reaction but one evidencing profound spirituality is an important one for it

 94

Chapter Six. Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107. 96 Bartholomew, 106. 97 Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, 10.5, 130; also, Hallman, 94. 98 See Met. Kallistos and Bishop Isaias (2014) interviews. 99 St. Silouan in Sakharov, St. Silouan. 100 I do not suggest that God is absent. 95

232

Chapter Eight

addresses, or ought to, the criticisms that animal protectionism is mere sentimentality and, that loving relationships with animals are a morbid substitute for human relationships. Met. Kallistos acknowledges that for some, companion animals may be the only loving relationship that is available to them and mentions by way of example, an elderly person who may love and stroke their cat. He considers this a perfectly acceptable relationship, which gives great comfort to the human and animal alike.101 I agree with his analysis and research shows that those who are elderly or had serious illness recover more quickly or live longer if they have companion animals. I submit that we may view companionship as another example of a non-violent use of animals. Companionship is an essential element for human mental flourishing and recognised as such in the creation narrative.102 If humans are not available, and this is increasingly common in modern societies, there should be no shame attached to forming caring and compassionate relationships with animals. His comments buttress my argument that the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have an important role in speaking out against the abuse and exploitation of the animal world, for as we have noted those ‘outside’ the Church i.e. conservationists and animal protectionists are frequently dismissed or abused for their troubles. They are not alone however in the abuse they receive. Breck’s earlier comments that “any good Christian ethicist needs to be courageous” for they are likely “to get attacked from all sides”103 reiterates teachings from St. Isaac who informed us that many will scoff at one’s perceived “liberality”.104 Here we need to pause and consider. What do these statements tell us? St. Isaac and Fr. Breck have clearly incurred considerable criticism and/or dismissal of their views and perhaps lifestyle. This surely should concern us for one is drawing our attention to the fact that we should reflect the Image of God by offering love and compassion to all things, whilst the other is trying to grapple with difficult subjects that require answers from the larger population. That both continued with their teachings is testament to their courage in this fallen world. Christ, as we are only too painfully aware was also subject to this abuse. This is, I suspect, one other factor in why there is a lack of Eastern Orthodox engagement on any theme related to animals. As noted, H. A. H. Bartholomew skilfully uses patristic tradition and the scientific knowledge of experts in many fields in his R.S.E. symposia

 101

Private conversation in Oxford, May 30th 2018. Gn 2: 18. 103 Breck and Breck, Stages on Life's Way, 14-5. 104 Isaac, Six Treaties on the Behaviour of Excellence, Treatise 1, Ch. 1, Mystic Treatises, 54. 102

Modern Voices

233

to promote the cohesion of theology and action. He does so by grounding his arguments in the traditional approach of offering the saints as exemplars of this union: In the gentle presence of a saint, we learn how theology and action coincide…The saint simply does what is “proper and right,” always dignifying humanity and honouring creation. 105

He is correct. In the next chapter, I examine two specific areas of animal suffering, which challenge any notion that creation is honoured or that humanity is dignified by its actions.

A Role for the Church In his address to the Oxford Union, H. A. H. Bartholomew advocates an important contemporary role for religion and in so doing buttresses the argument that the Church has an important role to play in the subject of animal suffering: Religion today comprises a central dimension of human life, both on the personal and the social levels. No longer can religion be relegated to a matter of individual preference or private practice. Religion is becoming increasingly meaningful and momentous in appreciating the past, analysing the present, and even assessing the future of our world. In our day, religion claims a public face and a social profile; and it is invited to participate in contemporary communal discourse.106

This is another insightful and profound teaching by H. A. H. Bartholomew that allows the opportunity to invite the Church to do just that by engaging with the subject of animal suffering. He frequently emphasizes the role that religion can play in effecting change in the human heart and he has proven his case, for his proclamations and statements have ignited a debate in the Eastern Orthodox world on the need to protect the environment. Despite the fact that in the majority of cases he uses language such as ‘creation’, ‘the environment’ or ‘nature’ rather than referring to animals per se, his teachings are applicable to animal beings

 105

Bartholomew, “Address before the Twelfth Ordinary General Assembly” quoting Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Homily 48 (2008b). In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 282. 106 Bartholomew, “Creation Care and Ecological Justice.”

234

Chapter Eight

for, as we have seen, there are specific teachings on the sin of the abusive use of animals. 107 I believe he is right to assert that the Eastern Orthodox Church has the authority to speak on issues such as the suffering of creation but of equal importance is that the Church also has the physical structure – the delivery system, both local and international, to deliver its message. I am not alone in recognising this potential. Limouris speaks to this point when stating that the Church should identify and underline sins which: …exemplify some of the glaring forms of injustice and disintegration which we experience today (c.f. Habakkuk 1:3; James 5:4) 108

He teaches that there is an urgent need to exercise “Christian responsibility towards” creation by: fostering the forces of justice for manifestation of the Kingdom of God in human kind and in the whole creation.109

In light of Limouris’s teaching and the other material presented throughout this work, would it be right to exclude non-human beings from such teachings? H. A. H. Bartholomew also teaches that religious leaders can have an important role in influencing the thoughts and actions of groups and mass movements.110 Whilst regulations and laws are the responsibility of other agencies, he has made frequent suggestions on how the leaders of the Church could facilitate individuals and governments to effect concrete, practical changes. As noted, his Religion, Science and Environment symposia and Halki summer seminars on various aspects of the contemporary environmental crisis are examples of this practice.111 The argument is that these conferences and seminars should include the suffering of animals. The question again arising is how many Eastern

 107

See Gschwandtner’s criticism that Bartholomew’s homilies are “disappointingly devoid of any references to non-human creation,” 7 note 5. I return to this presently. Also, Engelhardt, “Ecology, Morality.” In Chryssavgis and Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration. 108 Limouris, Justice, Peace, 7. 109 Limouris, Justice, Peace, 6. 110 Bartholomew, “Creator and Creation.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 178. 111 Aegean Sea (1995); Black Sea (1997); Danube River (1999); Adriatic Sea (2002); Baltic Sea (2003); Amazon River (2006); Artic Ocean (2007). The Halki summer seminars also focused on ecological education, exploring such issues such as religious education (1994); ethics (1995); society (1996); justice (1997) and poverty (1998).

Modern Voices

235

Orthodox theologians and ethicists are knowledgeable on the various subthemes of animal suffering? This in turn, brings the discussion back to the need to educate those who will discuss the subject in the future. We have already noted how education has a significant role to play in effecting social change.112 H. A. H. Bartholomew acknowledges this when giving authority for Eastern Orthodox academics to involve themselves in contemporary issues: It is our sincere and firm conviction that…the scholarly community are, perhaps in a unique and even unprecedented manner, able to provide invaluable insights and influential incentives in the wider community with regard to the limitless treasures of the philosophical, patristic and prophetic tradition of our Church. 113

I hope my work will be viewed as one such example. He teaches that education can instil an understanding of the sacramentality of nature. He also acknowledges the need for practical action, such as the planting of forests, cleaning lakes etc. 114 Educating our priests, on the subject of animal suffering, which ought to include visits to animal rescue centres and seminars on the wider subject, would ensure a broader appreciation of the suffering of God’s creation in the laity. Some might argue that topics such as dietary habits, hunting for fur and recreational activities that delight in the killing of innocent creatures, are outside of the remit of the Church. This is not the case for the Fathers often warned about the consequences of limiting our gluttony in order to assist the poor, spoke against vanity and injustice, taught on the “pomp of the devil” and warned about cosmic harmony. H. A. H. Bartholomew contemporizes their teachings: Wealthy, industrialized countries have unquestionably contributed most to atmospheric pollution. In our effort, then, to contain and reverse global warming, we must honestly ask ourselves, will we in the West, in more affluent countries, sacrifice our self-indulgence and consumerism? Will we direct our focus away from what we want to what the rest of the world needs? Will we recognize and assume our responsibility to leave a lighter

 112

This echoes the calls from the protectionists in the C. C. S for the Church to play a role in educating its priests and parishioners, Chapter Five and Appendix A. 113 Bartholomew, “Prefatory Letter.” In Chryssavgis & Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, xi-xii. 114 Bartholomew, “Environment and Religious Education.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 110; also, “Youth Before the Third Millennium.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 172.

236

Chapter Eight footprint on this planet for them and for the sake of future generations? We must choose to care; otherwise, we do not really care at all.115

We must choose to care. Free will means choice to do good or choice to do ill and the latter includes the choice of indifference and inaction. From the earliest periods of the Church, theologians taught of the need for kindness, mercy and compassion in our dealings with animals. The ‘true’ saints are held as exemplars of this Christ-like relationship with God’s non-human beings. As such the inclusion of animal suffering in Church education programs are entirely justified, not only out of pity and compassion for the animals but also as an aid to human salvation. We must however take care to avoid restricting our education to the lives of the saints for this alone will not address the problem of animal suffering in modern societies. Education on any theme must be thorough; we cannot therefore shy away from knowing the types or scale of animal suffering any more than we should shy away from knowing about the extent of pollution in our oceans or the air we breathe. I believe that ignorance has and will continue to produce bad philosophy and theology. I understand why we would wish to shy away from this knowledge because it is indeed harrowing but it is necessary if we are to fully understand the subject itself and provide informed opinion. I fully expect that in educating priests and consequently their parishioners on the sin of animal abuse and the detrimental environmental impacts of consuming animal products, the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church will help to effect real change. This raises two further points. First, until now education programs on environmental and animal suffering issues have not materialized and second, who will teach the priests? As far back as the 1987 Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation consultations, the Orthodox representatives called for more education, guidance and encouragement from “bishops, priests and laity” to teach and inspire “the youth of the church”. They also called for the use of experts from within the Church community to help facilitate this process: through theological studies and the development of social ethical disciplines in all of our seminaries and theological schools; through regional, diocesan, national and international gatherings...in cooperation

 115

Bartholomew, “Creation Care and Ecological Justice.”

Modern Voices

237

with fellow Christians of other church bodies, with non-Christian religious peoples and groups and with non-believers of good will everywhere. 116

I believe the issue of animal suffering and its impact upon human salvation is important enough to be included in those discussions. Limouris encouraged us to enter into “intellectual discussion on the major problems” and to give a “deeper and more studied approach to the contemporary issues which face us.” 117 Such teachings open theological space for Eastern Orthodox theologians and academics to engage with the subject of animal suffering. Perhaps there is no need; perhaps this is already being addressed in the wider Orthodox world. I have asked this very question. Initially, I contacted Fr. Chryssavgis in 2014 and asked if there was a seminary project or module for priests on the ethical treatment of animals and the environment. As far as he knew, no such programme existed but he believed the Ecumenical Patriarch would support such programs. I also asked Met. Kallistos and Bishop Isaias in 2014 and they gave a similar response. This was still the case in 2015: In the traditional manuals of theology, there is hardly any place for ecology and the same is true for the academic curricula of the theological schools, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.118

I asked a similar question to Prof. Skedros in 2017 and received a similar response. 119 If this remains the case in 2018, does this not indicate a lack of commitment on behalf of the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church to ensure such teachings are available for the next generation of priests? 120 I am not alone in raising this issue: Sadly, it has to be said that the practical application of theology is an area where we Orthodox often fall down. There is a temptation to say, “Look, it’s all in the Fathers” (or the liturgical texts or sacramental life...) and then sit back as if the problem were solved. Yet for all the richness of our

 116

Limouris, Justice, Peace, 24-25, also xiii. Limouris, Justice, Peace, 14; also, Keselopoulos in Chryssavgis & Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, 364. 118 Met. John, “A Comment on Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si.” 119 James Skedros is the Michael G. and Anastasia Cantonis Professor of Byzantine Studies and Professor of Early Christianity at Hellenic College Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Brookline, MA. 120 See Appendix B for an outline of a seminary project. Writing such programs is easy for those with a professional background in teaching. Of course, it needs to be adapted (e.g. the inclusion of country specific saints) and final decisions on which texts to include from the many are available. 117

Chapter Eight

238

theology of creation, Orthodox countries are hardly distinguished for environmental protection, or for widespread resistance to environmentally destructive elements of the modern lifestyle.121

To address this long-standing problem, I include an outline of a seminary project for our priests and an outline for a Master’s program both of which are to be adapted as required. I also include an outline of an Eastern Orthodox animal welfare group for those who wish to establish one in their communities and again this can be adapted. 122 Limouris raises another important factor in why the leaders of the Church need to participate. He draws our attention to the obvious-the Christian Church is not the only authority in today’s society and, that some of these ideologies are antithetical to the Christian message. He raises the challenge for the leaders of our Church to provide a vision “which the world desperately needs to hear, adopt and realize in practice.”123 I agree entirely with his views and would simply add that we must include the non-human animal creatures who suffer and will continue to suffer unless we hear that spiritual ‘voice’ expressed on their behalf. Stylios (1989) offers a practical route for effecting this change: This in practice means that Christians will be leaders in every ecological movement, which seeks to maintain and protect the natural environment. 124

H. A. H. Bartholomew affirms this view: …we cannot but be convinced environmentalists and firm believers in the sanctity of the material world…It is a pledge that we make to God that we shall embrace all of creation. It is what Orthodox theologians call “inaugurated eschatology,” or the final state already established and being realized in the present.125 We urgently appeal to those in positions of social and economic, as well as political and cultural, responsibility to hear the cry of the earth and to attend to the needs of the marginalized, but above all to respond to the plea of millions and support the consensus of the world for the healing of our wounded creation. We are convinced that there can be no sincere and enduring resolution to the challenge of the ecological crisis and climate

 121

Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation, 253. These are available in Appendix B. 123 Limouris, Justice, Peace, 22 no. 24. 124 Stylios in Harakas, Justice, Peace, 66; also, Bartholomew, “Encounter and Dialogue.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 347. 125 Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107. 122

Modern Voices

239

change unless the response is concerted and collective, unless the responsibility is shared and accountable, unless we give priority to solidarity and service.126

If as St. Irenaeus taught we are to embrace all of creation127 and if we are to hear the cry of the earth, should we not be willing to hear the very real cries of the suffering animals? H. A. H. Bartholomew buttresses the arguments on the sin of indifference and inaction: For indifference entails inaction, which in turn encourages further abuse, increasing the causes that originally provoke and preserve this indifference. 128

Thus, the invocation and supplication of the Church and us all to God as the Lord of lords and Ruler of all for the restoration of creation are essentially a petition of repentance for our sinfulness in destroying the world instead of working to preserve and sustain its ever-flourishing resources reasonably and carefully. When we pray to and entreat God for the preservation of the natural environment, we are ultimately imploring God to change the mind-set of the powerful in the world, enlightening them not to destroy the planet's ecosystem for reasons of financial profit and ephemeral interest. This in turn, however, also concerns each one of us inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage in our individual capacity and ignorance.129

We need however, to be cautious of resting the blame of our current situation solely at the feet of the powerful. We as individuals are accountable for our own choices and actions. H. A. H. Bartholomew speaks to the point in his statement on theological praxis, which must move: From the distant periphery of some abstract theology or religious institutionalism to the centre stage of our practical spirituality and pastoral ministry…our theology and spirituality must once again assume flesh; they must become “incarnate”. They must be closely connected to our fellow human beings as well as to the natural environment.130

 126

“Joint Message on the World Day of Prayer,” xxx. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2:5. 128 Bartholomew, “A Collective Responsibility.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 374; also “The Immorality of Indifference,” 290. 129 Bartholomew, “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation,” https://www.patriarchate.org//patriarchikon-menyma-epi-te-eorte-tes-indiktou-2012 130 Bartholomew, Cosmic Grace, 358, 359-365. 127

240

Chapter Eight

These are crucial teachings not only for the animal suffering theme but also for humanity. He recognizes that the environment is crying for liberation131; the soteriological implications of sins and indifference and that, the leaders of the Church must develop programs of practical application. He especially advises “the clergy and others in parish ministry to encourage and promote love for nature.”132 In light of such statements and initiatives, it seems incongruous to suggest that involvement with animal protection and conservation groups would be excluded from Eastern Orthodox Church involvement; especially as the Patriarch “sealed a friendship of common purpose and active cooperation for the preservation of the environment” with the President of the WWF as far back as 1993. 133 In essence, H. A. H. Bartholomew gives Eastern Orthodox Christians the authority to be leaders or involved in environmental, conservation and animal protection organisations.

Chapter Eight Summary I have established that the research in Ethology has challenged the traditional philosophical and theological views that certain abilities such as language, cognition, consciousness, rationality, moral agency etc. were unique to human beings. Informed opinion accepts that differences are a matter of degree rather than absence. In addition, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that many species of animals suffer physical pain and psychological distress. I have produced Nobel prize-winning research, which throws into doubt the belief that humans primarily act with intelligence and logic. This questions the long-held assumption that humans will be able to see the logic in our theological or ethical arguments and act accordingly. Our Cognitive Biases and Present Bias Focus restricts/limits our focus to the here and now, rather than on the future outcomes of our ‘irrational’ behaviours which include overeating, smoking, unprotected sex and environmental destruction. As a result, I advance the opinion that our messages would be more fruitful if we used the psychology of self-interest

 131

Bartholomew, “Climate Change.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 350-1; also, “A New Worldview,” a section from the lead article “Thine Own From Thine Own” dedicated to the preservation of the natural environment. In, Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 330. 132 Bartholomew, “Education and Parish Action.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 110-111. See Appendix B. 133 Chryssavgis, “A New Heaven and a New Earth: Orthodox Christian Insights from Theology, Spirituality, and the Sacraments,” 155.

Modern Voices

241

and focus on the negative soteriological implications of our abusive and exploitative behaviours. For this, we need to identify the sins against animals in our era. We have begun this process. In relation to environmental destruction, sin has a cosmic dimension and cosmological impact, the misuse of any part of creation is a sin, a mortal sin and an unforgivable insult to the uncreated God. I submit that such teachings ought to include the misuse of animals. We are to extend our understanding of community and to extend justice and mercy to the entire creation. Harakas’s definition of the “the avoidance of immoral profiteering, injustice and exploitation” being replaced with the “right ordering” of human nature, where the inherent value of creation demands a responsible approach, “its proper treatment”, seems appropriate for the subject of animal suffering. Yet when we examine the reality of these teachings for the non-human animal creation, it appears that this will be impossible without the intervention of the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church who are encouraged to be the voice for the voiceless; a voice for the rest of creation whose rights are violated. We are also encouraged to extend our love to the non-human world, which reinforces my argument, that just because humans are God’s regent this does not equate to a lessening of God’s love, compassion and mercy for the rest of His creation. Teachings which acknowledge that caring for animals is not merely an emotional reaction but one evidencing profound spirituality addresses, or ought to, the criticisms that animal protectionism is mere sentimentality and, that loving relationships with animals are a morbid substitute for human relationships or a folly for the soul. Teachings such as those above support the argument that our reflection of the Image of love is the key to the cessation of cruelty, aggression and violence to animals, rather than discussions on cognitive capabilities. They are also vital guidance for establishing an Eastern Orthodox position on our treatment and relationship with animals that has love, mercy and compassion at its core. I have advanced the opinion that the Eastern Orthodox Church has the teachings, authority and the organisation to provide and transmit a spiritual voice on behalf of God’s non-human created beings, whilst at the same time, continuing its mission to save human souls. It is important however, to recognize that ambiguity and confusion on aspects of this subject still exist and that this situation is likely to remain until our Patriarchs, Bishops and Orthodox theologians engage with the subject. H. A. H. Bartholomew asks the following:

242

Chapter Eight If only we knew how to learn the right lessons, the web of causal connections between extreme events in different parts of the world could have a sobering effect.134

I contend that animal exploitation and suffering is one such connection for we have the evidence to show how this affects upon the wider environment and our salvation. My work aims to facilitate Eastern Orthodox engagement in this subject by offering those in authority, both early and contemporary Eastern Orthodox perspectives on several integral elements of animal suffering. These include the ontological and spiritual interconnectedness of all created beings, the negative impact of the categorisation of irrationality to non-human animals and the negative soteriological consequences of animal suffering. The culminating argument is essentially a simple one: if priests are not educated on these issues, how can we expect them to teach their parishioners? If we do not teach our parishioners the soteriological implications of animal suffering, how can we realistically expect them to change their behaviour? Remarkably, the remedy is equally simple. Modern commentators urge the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church to educate themselves and our priests with the relevant scientific information on environmental matters and to become involved in practical terms in environmental movements. I urge our Church leaders and Eastern Orthodox academics to do likewise with regard to the suffering of individual animals within that suffering environment. Education programs can easily be adapted from the seminary project included in Appendix B. To complement such a program the leaders of the Church could include the biblical, patristic, canonical texts, Orthodox poetry and modern commentaries presented throughout this work and the many other examples available in the rich corpus of patristic texts. In so doing it would lay the foundation of an Eastern Orthodox theology which not only provides the spiritual context of love and compassion to “all things” in God’s creation, but also practical guidance on both our relationship and treatment of animals. In this way it is believed that the leaders of the Church will help to alleviate the suffering of animals whilst fulfilling their mission to spread the ‘good news’ of salvation through an all-loving and compassionate God.

 134

Bartholomew, “Keynote Address by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the Arctic Circle Assembly,” https://www.patriarchate.org//keynote-address-by-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-at-thearctic-circle-assembly-reykjavik-october-13-2017-.

Modern Voices

243

Arguably, I could have ended this work at this point. This would have avoided the need to examine, discuss and find solutions to two major causes of animal suffering in the contemporary world. In doing so, I would have succeeded in avoiding further criticism but failed in my duty to present a theological context to these increasingly discussed contemporary problems.

CHAPTER NINE IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATION

Overview This chapter is perhaps the most challenging, for it examines the implications of our categorisation of animals as beings who do not possess the right to an eternal life with God. I do so through the examination of two areas, which cause immense suffering and arise from the commonly held view that animals are resources, units of production or disposable life, rather than individual beings with needs who are loved by God. I advance the opinion that the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have significant roles to play in altering this negative perception of animals and offer several examples of how to achieve this. It continues to ask challenging questions on the soteriological implications for humans of animal abuse and exploitation and reaches the conclusion that neither system is compatible with the tenants of Christianity.

The Living Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church Some might argue that the topics covered in this chapter are outside the sphere of Eastern Orthodox theological discourse. This is not the case. In his address to Eastern Orthodox Scholars, H. A. H. Bartholomew gives us the authority to do so: ...Orthodoxy is a faith at once rooted in the past, yet at the same time a Church looking toward the future. It is characterized by a profound sense of continuity with the times and teachings of the Apostolic Church and the Church of the Fathers; but it is also a Church that draws from its rich heritage in order to respond to modern challenges and dilemmas. It is precisely this dual nature that permits Orthodoxy to speak boldly about critical contemporary issues-precisely because it is a “living tradition.”1



1 Bartholomew, “Address by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew To the Scholars’ Meeting at the Phanar.”

Implications and Application

245

This chapter enacts this “living tradition” by examining two challenging contemporary issues: animal food production and the animal testing model. Both are important subjects for millions of humans across the globe not only because of the animal suffering involved, but also because of the significant impact upon our environment and human health. An exhaustive investigation of either subject is not possible, as each would require its own monograph. I have tried instead to balance the need for facts and realism rather than platitudes, whilst limiting the material used and being mindful of the need to be compassionate to the reader. I begin with an exploration of the animal food industries. I have previously discussed ancient teachings on aspects of our diet in Chapter Two and touched upon contemporary animal suffering in the animal food production industry in relation to Met. Kallistos’s comment on “evil profit” in Chapter Six. Here the discussion examines the practical implications and animal suffering involved in our choices, together with the implications for our salvation.

An Inconvenient Truth-Sacrifice and Spiritual Revolution The continuing challenge before us is how we are to apply both ancient and contemporary teachings on compassionate care for “all things” in creation and extending our understanding of community, justice, mercy and rights, to the animals within these two systems. Eastern Orthodox theologians have repeatedly called for humanity to change its ethos from one based upon a theory of continual consumption, to one with a Eucharistic and aesthetic ethos of love, virtue, sacrifice, abstinence and purification of sin.2 In essence, they remind us of patristic teachings to restrict and control our desires. H. A. H. Bartholomew confirms Met. Kallistos’s teaching on the damaging and continuing mind-set of domination rather than loving dominion: Unfortunately, humanity has lost the liturgical relationship between the Creator God and the creation; instead of priests and stewards, human beings have been reduced to tyrants and abusers of nature.3

His use of the word ‘nature’ indicates that his teaching incorporates animals and corroborates the argument that the abuse and exploitation of

 2

E.g. Bartholomew, “Message of His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew for the day of prayer for the protection of the Environment,” 1st Sept 2015. 3 Bartholomew, “The Orthodox Church and the Environment.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 364.

246

Chapter Nine

animals has negative consequences for not only the abused animals in the form of physical pain, suffering and psychological fear but also negative soteriological implications for humankind. I submit that in addition to those who perpetrate acts of cruelty and exploitation, those who know of such acts but are indifferent to them and those who know but shy away from trying in some way to alleviate the abuse, are in a sense giving tacit approval to that process and are accessories after the fact.4 He states that for Orthodox Christians this ascetic ethos “is not negation, but a reasonable and tempered use of the world.”5 He also draws our attention to the inconvenient truth of the missing dimension and need for sacrifice: This need for an ascetic spirit can be summed up in a single key word: sacrifice. This is the missing dimension of our environmental ethos and ecological action.6

He clarifies this point with teachings on self-limitation in consumption and interprets self-restraint in terms of love, humility, self-control, simplicity, and social justice all of which are important teachings for our choice of diet and the products we choose to purchase. 7 Crucially, he acknowledges the fundamental problem of inaction and the difficulties in effecting change: We are all painfully aware of the fundamental obstacle that confronts us in our work for the environment. It is precisely this: how to move from the theory to action, from word to deeds. 8 For this spiritual revolution to occur, we must experience radical metanoia, a conversion of attitudes, habits and practices, for ways that we have misused or abused God’s Word, God’s gifts, and God’s creation.9

 4

A useful analogy here is the judgement and guilt of those who accept stolen goods. 5 Bartholomew, “A Rich Heritage.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 189. 6 Bartholomew, “The Ascetic Corrective.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 296-8; also, “Sacrifice: The Missing Dimension,” 275. 7 Bartholomew, “The Ascetic Corrective.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 219, 188; also, Speaking the Truth, 89-91, 352-3. 8 Bartholomew, “Sacrifice: The Missing Dimension,” in Cosmic Grace, p. 275. 9 Bartholomew, “Address before the Twelfth Ordinary General Assembly.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 283; also, Limouris, Justice, Peace, 11-12; St Cyril, Catechetical Homilies, Homily 2:5.

Implications and Application

247

These are profound teachings and reminiscent of the warnings from the prophets of old. This spiritual revolution is also required for a conversion in the way we view animals and thus the way we treat them. Many of his teachings urge us to reflect the asceticism of the early Fathers and of the urgent need for changes in human behaviour. In our greed and lust for ever increasing profit, we “violently and cunningly subordinate and exploit creation.” This not only destroys creation but also “undermines the foundations and conditions necessary for the survival of future generations.”10 This aligns with Met. Kallistos’s comment on “evil profit” and St. Irenaeus’s teaching that we must not use our freedom as a “cloak of maliciousness.”11 It also hints at the environmental crisis, which is beginning to evidence the devastating results of our continued abuse and misuse of animals. Our inability to move from theory to practice indicates that our weaknesses make it difficult for us to attain the Christian ideals.12

Animal Food Production Industries and Dietary Choices Keselopoulos (2001) addresses some of the human and environmental problems associated with the animal-based diet and food industry.13 He explains that famines in Africa, caused by drought and desertification, are due to the monoculture of commodities to supply food for the animals of the North. The result is the: cynical phenomenon of reserves of dried milk being sent to dying children in Africa, while their own land, instead of producing traditional foodstuffs for local use, “is made barren by the monoculture of animal foodstuffs destined to feed Europe’s cattle.” 14

This is a crucial point. Our misuse of the land and water in order to meet our ever-increasing desire for animal food products has created an imbalance in the natural world, which results in harm to both humans and animals. One question arising here is, is it a sin to continue to use this system and its products once we become aware of its devastating effects? Keselopoulos speaks to the point by specifically linking our use of animals



10 Bartholomew, “Foretaste of the Resurrection.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 41; also, “Creator and Creation.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 176. For similar sentiments, see Dimitrios 1, “Message on Environmental Protection Day.” 11 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.37.4; 4.16.5. 12 E.g., Bishop Isaias, Chapter Seven and Limouris, Justice, Peace, 23.28. 13 Keselopoulos, Man and the Environment. 14 Keselopoulos, 93.

248

Chapter Nine

as food with the practice of aestheticism, compassion and pity for the natural world: Thus, aestheticism prophetically throws into high relief the prerequisite of compassion and pity for both nature and the beauty of the world. This is what can impede the downward spiral into barbarism that murders the animal kingdom by genetically mutating animals raised for beef or dairy products into freaks of nature and makes the land infertile.15

Keselopoulos not only illustrates the tension between economic interests and animal suffering, particularly in the animal food production industries, but also that fasting limits the number of deaths. In so doing, he affirms the teachings of H. A. H. Bartholomew and others on greed and evil profits; St. Gregory’s teachings on use not misuse16 and of the need for sacrifice. I condense his comments: If the motives for all these human activities is insatiable greed and the desire for easy profits, then fasting, as a voluntary self-restriction of human needs, can enable man to free himself, at least to a certain degree, from his desires. He can again discover his pristine character, which is to turn toward God, his neighbour and creation, with a genuinely loving disposition. Abstinence from meat, observed by monks all year long limits the amount of death we provoke in our relationship to the world. Abstinence from certain foods simultaneously aims at protecting, even for a short period of time animals that in great numbers are so cruelly devoured by man. The spirit of fasting that we are obliged to preserve today throughout our culture requires that we change course in our relationship to nature from a predatory thirst for blood to that state of gratitude, which is the distinctive mark of the Eucharist.” 17

I concur with his analysis, which arises from sound scientific research. Met. John provides a similar argument: Restraint in the consumption of natural resources is a realistic attitude and ways must be found to put a limit to the immense waste of natural materials.’18

 15

Keselopoulos, “The Prophetic Charisma in Pastoral Theology: Asceticism, Fasting and the Ecological Crisis.” In Chryssavgis & Foltz, 361. I develop this presently. 16 Gregory of Nyssa, On Love for the Poor 1st Homily; also, Holman, The Hungry are Dying, 198. 17 Keselopoulos, “The Prophetic Charisma.” In Chryssavgis & Foltz, 361-2. 18 Met. John, “A Comment on Pope Francis.”

Implications and Application

249

If this argument is apposite for wastage of ‘resources’, then it is equally apposite for the wastage of animal life. I interpret his use of ‘resource’ as referring to the inanimate creation but as there is room for confusion on its meaning, I remind the reader of the need for greater mindfulness in our choice of language. Despite Met. John’s belief that it would be unrealistic to expect our societies to follow an asceticism that echoes the lives of the saints, many of whom were vegetarian, millions of people choose this non-violent diet. They understand that whilst they as individuals may not be able to change the abusive practices of the animal food industries, they have the freedom to choose the non-violent diet advocated by God and do so out of compassion and mercy for the animals and the environment. Met. Anthony of Sourozh indicates that the vegan diet is one to emulate and the tragedy of not doing so: It is frightening to imagine that Man, who was called to lead every being along the road to transfiguration, to the fullness of life, came to the point that he could no longer ascend to God, and was compelled to obtain his food by the killing of those, which he should have led to perfection. This is where the tragic circle closes. We find ourselves inside this circle. All of us are still incapable of living only for eternal life and according to the word of God, although the saints have in a large measure returned to God’s original conception of Man. The saints show us that we can through prayer and spiritual endeavour gradually free ourselves from the need to feed on the flesh of animals, and, becoming more and more assimilated to God, require less and less of it. 19

This is important recognition from Met. Anthony. He links the eating of animals with a loss of human freedom and our inability to transfigure our fallen lives and ascend to God. 20 Keselopoulos argues that vegan/vegetarianism breaks this circle. The fact that many ascetics were and are vegetarian ought to remind us of God’s original dietary choice and thus the most appropriate dietary path to follow. 21 It is important to remember that whilst God gave us the dispensation to eat meat, He does not command or force us to do so; we retain the freedom to return to God’s choice. Perhaps if Met. Anthony had known more about the cruelty

 19

Met. Anthony (Bloom) Encounter, 135. This links to the earlier points on Noah’s failure to grasp the potential for humankind to re-establish a pre-lapsarian violence-free existence. Met. Anthony was not a vegetarian. 21 Roberts, informs us of the lives of one hundred and fifty saints who chose this non-violent diet. Vegetarian Christian Saints; mystics, ascetics and monks; also, The Ark Summer 2008.

20

250

Chapter Nine

involved in animal food production he may also have chosen to become vegan/vegetarian. Met. Kallistos recognizes this possibility: Methods such as factory farming are rather new and I feel that if more people knew what happened they may well give up eating meat…People who live in towns like me eat the products but don’t know too much about the background and I think if I knew more about the background I might feel I might have to become a vegetarian.22

It is interesting to note that he also acknowledges that it is easy to find information available on the web, in reports and research and makes the obvious point: So perhaps it is more that people do not want to know, rather than not being able to access the information.23

Here we see a trace of Kahneman and St. Paul; we know but choose not to act in the right ways. If we as individuals or as leaders of our Church advocated the non-violent diet of vegan/vegetarianism, this would not only reduce the number of animals who suffer but also reduce the many environmental problems associated with animal food production. Our increasing desire to consume animal products has resulted in the breeding of such vast numbers of animals that serious negative impacts have arisen for our environments. Knight (2013)24 provides us with the following important scientific information. x In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (Steinfeld et al,) calculated that when measured as carbon dioxide (CO2), 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gases (GHGs) – totaling 7.5 billion tons annually, result from the production of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, horses, pigs and poultry. These emissions result from land-clearing for feed crop production and grazing, from the animals themselves, and from the transportation and processing of animal products. In contrast, all forms of transportation combined were estimated to produce around 13.5 percent of global GHGs.

 22

Chapter Six. Chapter Six. 24 Knight, A, “Animal Agriculture and Climate Change.” In The Global Guide to Animal Protection, ed. A. Linzey, 254-256. Urbana, Chicago and Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2013. 23

Implications and Application

251

x The GHGs produced by animal production are composed of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and ammonia. Steinfeld and colleagues calculated that the livestock sector is responsible for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions-that is, those attributable to human activity-which mostly arise from deforestation caused by the encroachment of feed crops and pastures. Animal production occupies some 30 percent of the Earth’s land surface and is increasingly driving deforestation, particularly in Latin America. [Circa] seventy percent of previously forested Amazonian land has now been converted to pastures, with feed crops covering a large part of the remainder. x Animals kept for production emit 37 percent of anthropogenic methane, which has been calculated as exerting seventy-two times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2, over a twenty year time frame, mostly from gastrointestinal fermentation by ruminants (particularly, cows and sheep). They also emit 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide with 296 times the GWP of CO2, the great majority of which is released from manure. They also emit 64 percent of anthropogenic ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain and ecosystem acidification. x In 2009 Goodland and Anhang calculated that at least 22 billion tons of CO2 emissions attributable to animal production were not counted and at least 3 billion tons were misallocated by Steinfeld and colleagues. Uncounted sources included livestock respiration, deforestation and methane underestimates. They concluded that animal production actually accounts for at least 51 percent of worldwide GHGs and probably significantly more. Although the precise figures remain under study, it is nevertheless clear that the GHGs resulting from animal production are one of the largest contributors to modern climate change. Despite these facts, the impact of the animal-based diet on global warming continues to be underestimated and underreported.25 This is in addition to the grave situation described by Keselopoulos above.

 25

The carbon footprint produced by animals is as follows: cow 16Kg CO2 per 1Kg of meat; sheep 13Kg CO2; pig 5Kg CO2; chicken 4.4Kg CO2 as compared to mussels, which hardly register on the scale, Horizon, “Should I Eat Meat?” Also, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Report (2006) “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues & Options.” UNFA Report (2013) “Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock.” European Commission, (2010) “Roadmap for Moving to a Low-Carbon Economy in 2050.” International Food Policy

252

Chapter Nine

Using the argument of self-interest as a motivating factor, we can see how abstinence from an animal-based diet could have immediate beneficial results for our water sources, climate change and thus our future survival. We do not need to wait for world/government agreements in order to effect change. This partially addresses the human and environmental aspect of this theme but what about the animals, what do we know of their suffering in these industries? If we as individuals or as leaders of our Church are to engage with the subject of animal suffering we need to acquaint ourselves with the available knowledge not only on the environmental impact of an animal-based diet but also on the suffering involved in the systems used. There is a huge amount of research in this area and here I condense some of that research whilst referencing others: In order to meet the requirements of industrial production and high-density housing, animals are routinely branded with hot irons, dehorned, debeaked, de-tailed and castrated without any sedation or painkillers…piglets have tails cut off and males are castrated by crushing or pulling off their testicles without analgesics, even though these procedures cause “considerable pain” (Broom and Fraser 1997). The same happens to lambs…The price for the mutilation is high for individual animals. Piglets show signs of pain for up to a week afterwards (including trembling, lethargy, vomiting and leg shaking). In lambs, stress hormone levels take a huge leap and they show signs of significant pain for four hours or more. Dairy calves who are dehorned show pain for six or more hours afterwards (Turner 2006). Birds too are mutilated without analgesics; beaks are trimmed and at times inside toes are also cut. After debeaking the animals will experience acute pain for circa two days and chronic pain lasts for up to six weeks (Duncan 2001). As stock numbers are vast, illness and injuries are likely to go undetected and result from high density, lack of space, lack of mental stimulation and physical exhaustion; physical and mental health problems quickly arise (Broom & Fraser 2007). Veal calves are often kept in tiny enclosures and tied down by their necks and quickly succumb to “abnormal behaviour and ill health” (Turner 2006; European Commission 1995). Intensive egg production weakens bones and leads to lameness,



Research Institute, (2009) “Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation.” Organic Centre State of Science Review, “Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency of Energy Use in Agriculture.” The Royal Society, (2010) “Energy and the Food System.” United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biodiversity (2007) “Biodiversity and Climate Change.” World Bank Agriculture & Rural Development Department, Report (2009) “Minding The Stock: Bringing Public Policy to Bear on Livestock Sector Development.” International Panel on Climate Change “Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change.”

Implications and Application

253

osteoporosis and painful fractures as all calcium and minerals are used for eggs causing “both acute and chronic pain”…it can also lead to internal haemorrhages, starvation and ultimately death which will be painful and “lingering” (Webster 2004:184). Cows suffer from mastitis and lameness (Stokka et al, 1997) and kept pregnant to keep milk yields high, (Vernelli 2005; Turner 2006).26

There is no other reason for these practices other than the desire for increased profit; the “evil profit” that Met. Kallistos describes in Chapter Six. One question arising here is whether the required “spiritual revolution” should apply to the animals within these industries. If the answer is no, we ought to examine why we have made the choice to exclude billions of animals from receiving compassion, mercy and justice. If we conclude that they are simply for that use, then I believe we are in danger of continuing the mind-set of domination, which in turn, indicates that only human suffering is relevant to God. I submit that this mind-set is against the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Having given a small indication of the suffering endured during the rearing of animals, we should also consider their death. Most people no doubt believe that the killing of animals is ‘humane’ and undertaken close to home. Research provides evidence that even in countries with strict animal welfare laws, many millions are likely to suffer in the process of transportation and slaughter. Live animals are routinely transported by road, rail, sea or air across continents. All animal welfare charities agree that long distance transport causes enormous suffering through overcrowding, exhaustion, dehydration, pain and stress. For example, in the EU, up to 35 million chickens are dead by the time they reach the slaughterhouse.27 Australia exports around four million live sheep every year, mostly to the Middle East. These animals can travel up to 50 hours by road before they start the three weeks journey by sea and a further journey by road in the importing country. It is estimated that tens of

 26

Aaltola, Animal Suffering, 34-45. Aaltola provides many other reports and scientific studies, which outline numerous examples of suffering. Also, Broom & Nimon, 1999, 2001; European Commission, 1995, 2001, 2012; Mench, 2002, 2008; Sanotra, Berg and Lund, 2003; Julain, 2004; Appleby 2007. For other references to misuse and cruelty, see the European Commission Reports (1995, 2001, and 2012) and the Compassion in World Farming website: http://www.ciwf.org. 27 Duncan, “Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry: Is There a Lesson to Be Learned,” 211.

254

Chapter Nine

thousands of sheep die before reaching their destination. 28 Despite the Australian government’s implementation of an export supply-chain assurance scheme, investigations by animal welfare groups have documented terrible suffering at slaughter after export.29 Canada transports farm animals thousands of miles within its borders and to America. The animals experience exceptionally harsh conditions as the climate changes from freezing cold to scorching sun. The trucks used are often without air conditioning. In India, cattle travel vast areas as only two states are legally allowed to slaughter cows. Animals are often brutally treated and overcrowded during transport, resulting in severe injuries and fatalities. Thousands of animals travel from South America and reared for beef production in Asia and Africa. These journeys often involve the animals spending weeks at sea and result in inhumane slaughter. In addition to the problems of transportation when delays, errors or accidents occur, thousands of animals die in tragic circumstances.30 The spread of diseases is another worrying factor. Diseases such as bluetongue virus, foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and swine fever can be directly attributable to the live transportation of farm animals. Moving livestock long distances to markets and slaughterhouses can spread infectious diseases between animals around a country. Animals can travel from country to country with few medical checks, which can result in the spread of disease. In 2007, a number of cattle imported from continental Europe arrived with bluetongue virus because they had not been tested before their journeys began. The suffering often does not end when the journey is over. Duncan informs us that: Of all the things we do to our animals on the farm the things we do to them in the 24 hours before they are slaughtered reduce their welfare the most.31

 28

https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2012/09/Live-export-tragedies-continue-as70000-sheep-suffer 29 https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2012/06/Slaughter-footage-reveals-horrifyingsuffering. 30 In 2003, the Corm Express carried 58,000 sheep from Australia to Saudi Arabia. The sheep remained on board for three months in appalling and deteriorating conditions resulting in over 5,000 deaths. Fire, delays or sinking of livestock ships result in the suffering and death of large numbers of animals. In December 2009, more than 17,000 cattle and 10,500 sheep drowned when the ship transporting them from Uruguay to Syria capsized in a storm off the coast of Tripoli, with the loss of the Captain and several crew. 31 Duncan, “Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry: Is There a Lesson to Be Learned,” 216.

Implications and Application

255

In many countries animals are brutally loaded, unloaded and moved using electric goads, sticks, ropes, chains and sharp objects. Standards of slaughter vary. Some animals are inadequately stunned or not stunned at all before slaughter: Birds such as broiler chickens and turkeys are pulled and dragged by their feet and shoved into crates with great haste (up to thousands per hour). Dislocations and broken bones are common, as are internal injuries and death. Due to problems with stunning, birds face greater risk of missing the stunning machine and of entering the scalding tank alive and conscious.32 Bleeding techniques can be poor, which means the pigs may regain consciousness whilst hanging upside down from the slaughter line shackles with a puncture wound in their chest. These animals will desperately try to right themselves, unable to comprehend what is happening to them (Grandin 2003).33 Fish placed on ice take up to 15 minutes to lose consciousness, eventually dying through suffocation, and means that fish may be conscious when their gills are cut off.34

Gross informs us that pigs are not the only animals to regain consciousness during the slaughter process.35 When we become aware of the harmful realities of consuming animal food products, we understand why Met. Kallistos describes his experience of intensive farming as unchristian and the financial gains as “evil profit.”36

 32

Duncan, 211; also 11, 13. See also Gregory and Wilkins, “Broken Bones in Domestic Fowl: Handling and Processing Damage in End-of-Lay Battery Hens.” Weeks & Nicol, “Poultry Handling and Transport”; Webster, “Welfare Implications of Avian Osteoporosis.” 33 http://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2013/05/illegal-slaughter-of-animals-in-cyprus/. https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/tag/slaughter. 34 Lymbery, “In Too Deep: The Welfare of Intensively Farmed Fish.” Those who follow Judaism and Islam still slaughter animals in the biblical tradition. A recent undercover investigation highlights the inhumane actions and immense suffering of animals, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5456263/Men-chanted-tribalstyle-dance-killed-sheep-spared-jail.html. 35 Cows also regain consciousness. Lecture notes, Winchester 2016. 36 His arguments are equally relevant to other problem areas such as vivisection and animal testing; the wearing of fur; aspects of the pet and zoo trade and the killing of animals for fun in the promotion of ‘sport’ and ‘recreational’ hunting. See, Marcus, Meat Market: Animals, Ethics and Money.

256

Chapter Nine

One question that begs asking here is where is the compassion, justice, mercy and inclusion into our community for the animals used in these systems? Having previously outlined an Eastern Orthodox theory of love and compassion to all creatures, including fish, are we to apply it to animals in the food production industry. If the answer is no, we ought to examine why we have made the choice to exclude billions of animals from inclusion in our spiritual revolution. If the answer is yes, we have the challenge of how we are to apply teachings on extending our community, justice and rights to the animals within these systems. This will not be easy, for those who use such practices or consume its products need to accept that changes are necessary. In the context of this part of the discussion, there appear to be only two solutions: a) the animal food production industries stop reproducing vast numbers of animals. b) Consumers reduce or refrain from animal products, thus reducing the demand, the number of animals reared, the environmental damage they cause and the overall suffering incurred. The first seems unlikely since the industry meets the demands of the consumer and makes huge profits in the process. The solution therefore appears to lie with the consumer. This is where the leaders of our Church can play a significant role. If individuals were encouraged to refrain or reduce their consumption of animal-based food products this would be both an effective and immediate way of decreasing the demand, the animal suffering involved and the damage to the environment and human health. Basing the argument upon the likelihood that people will choose selfinterest over altruism, Christians may be more accepting of this teaching if they knew of the health problems associated with an animal-based diet. Whilst this information is normally available via the health professions and the media there is also an important role for the Church. We have noted patristic teachings on the destruction of God’s creation because of human passion 37 and one frequent example is the self-centred love of gluttony. Russell (1980) informs us that: The control of the appetite was never over; it is instructive that it is gluttony as much as sexuality which was their continuous field of battle.38

As noted, St. Gregory offers further guidance:

 37

Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving 10.5, 130; also, Gschwandtner The Role of Non-Human Creation, 87, note 185; Gregory, On the Love of the Poor, 94. 38 Russell, The Lives of the Desert Fathers, 37.

Implications and Application

257

Use, do not misuse...Do not indulge in a frenzy of pleasures. Don’t make yourself a destroyer of absolutely all living things, whether they be fourfooted and large or four-footed and small, birds, fish, exotic or common, a good bargain or expensive. The sweat of the hunter ought not to fill your stomach like a bottomless well that many men digging cannot fill. 39

A question arising here is if gluttony is a sin, is the killing of animals to feed this gluttony also a sin? St. Gregory’s use of negative language to describe the process, pillages, eradicates, artful hedonists, may indicate that this is so.40 Whilst St. John Chrysostom does not identify the food in the following, he does acknowledge the link between food and ill health: Don’t you daily observe thousands of disorders stemming from laden tables and immoderate eating? 41

Many people are ignorant of the detrimental health effects of consuming animal products. This, in part, is due to the large sums of money used to market animal products as healthy, yet when we examine the research into diet and ill health we see a direct correlation between adopting the animal-based diets in developing countries with an increase in Western health problems, which includes obesity. In the UK, obesity has more than trebled in the last 25 years with nearly a third of adults and a fourth of children diagnosed as obese. Health experts believe that obesity is linked to a wide range of health problems, including some cancers ; diabetes; heart disease; high blood pressure; arthritis; infertility; indigestion; gallstones; stress, anxiety, depression; snoring and sleep apnoea.42 I have noted how consuming animal products is the norm for many cultures and despite numerous health warnings associated with animal food products, huge numbers of people continue to eat themselves into ill health. Again, we see the importance of Kahneman’s work. Attitudes to diet will not be easy to change without education. Certainly, such education should be ongoing in schools and colleges. However, this

 39

Gregory of Nyssa, On Love for the Poor. Gregory of Nyssa, 57. 41 Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, 10.5, 130. 42 In addition, a recent government report estimated that obesity would cost the NHS £6.4 billion per year by 2015, which has implications for human health provision, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295 149/07-1662-obesity-modelling-trends.pdf. Also, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/21702372. 40

258

Chapter Nine

is another area where the leaders of the Church can play a significant role.43 Moving to the soteriological implications of our actions H. A. H. Bartholomew offers some clarity. He begins with listing environmental calamities such as nuclear explosions, radioactive waste, toxic rain and polluting oil-spills then unusually, he adds a form of animal abuse to the list: We may also think of the force-feeding of animals so that they will provide more food for us. All this constitutes an insolent overthrow of natural order.44

This is a rare and important teaching for the animal food production aspect of animal suffering. His acknowledgement of the violence and inhumane production processes involved is clear recognition that forcefeeding animals is an example of the exploitation of ‘nature’. His language reminds us of St Gregory’s negative language in his teaching on “Use; do not misuse!” He also acknowledges the ill effects of this insolent overthrowing of the natural order to human health: Indeed, it is becoming generally accepted that the disruption of the natural order has negative effects on the health and well-being of human beings, such as the contemporary plagues of humanity, cancer, the syndrome of post virus fatigue, heart diseases, anxieties and a multitude of other diseases.45

His acknowledgement of the link between exploitative food production practices and harm to animal and human health is also critically important, for it highlights the interconnectedness of the created world. 46 The question arising here is whether he has identified these processes as sins. A related and equally challenging question is whether it is right to kill innocent animals in medical research to treat disorders that have arisen from this form of human self-indulgence. H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching on humanity’s exploitation of nature in “greedy and unnatural ways” may help us to answer that question. I argue that these practices

 43

I develop the topic of education presently. “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation,” 1st September 2001. In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 56. 45 Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 56. 46 See Fig. 1-3 and details of liver dysfunction, over expansion of the abdomen, walking problems, scarring of the oesophagus and death. 44

Implications and Application

259

indicate not only the desire for evil profit but also continuing human arrogance and the sinful misuse of our freedom.47 The teaching on the overthrowing of the natural order is equally applicable to the restrictions on another aspect of animal suffering, i.e. their loss of freedom. Animals kept in pens or cages are restricted in both their movements and natural behaviours. Examples would include gestation and veal crates; ‘battery’ and crush-cages; small cages or enclosures for animals with fur, or wild animals kept for human curiosity and entertainment. Keeping animals in these conditions causes physiological and psychological distress and ill health. 48 It seems reasonable therefore to include his specific example of force-feeding animals and my additions to it, as further examples of sins against animals. H. A. H. Bartholomew also speaks to the point on the negative soteriological implications for those who by their inaction and/or use of the products are part of the problem: We all share the responsibility for such tragedies, since we tolerate those immediately responsible for them and accept a portion of the fruit that results from such an abuse of nature.49

In applying his teaching to our theme, we can state that whilst we may not be killing or rearing the animals in inhumane ways, by our demand for animal food products we are part of the reason why such practices and processes exist. Essentially, we create the demand and the market. The challenge before us remains. We teach on the need for a spiritual revolution and on the extension of justice, rights, mercy, compassion, nonviolence and inclusion of nature into our community. We are also to be a ‘voice’ for the ‘voiceless’ which indicates that we ought to act in ways that reduce animal suffering. What then are we as Eastern Orthodox Christians and Church to say when we learn of the animal suffering involved in both the rearing and death of animals within these systems? Limouris speaks to the point when linking our Christian duty to identify injustices, which brings us back to personal sacrifice: Christian men and women must also have the courage to spell out the injustices, which they see, even though this might require them to make

 47

I address the animal testing model presently. See examples of these in Figs. 1-2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 3-3. 49 The acceptance of stolen goods makes the point. “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation” 1st September 2001. In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 57. 48

260

Chapter Nine personal sacrifices. These sacrifices will include costly involvement and action.50 We must repent for the abuses which we have imposed upon the natural world...We must work and lobby in every way possible...For ourselves, this means a recommitment to the simple life which is content with necessities and…a new affirmation of self-discipline, a renewal of the spirit of asceticism. 51 Words, however–even changed attitudes-will no longer suffice. Wherever we find ourselves, as Christians we need to act in order to restore the integrity of creation. A creative, cooperative, active and determined plan of action is required for implementation.52

If it is our individual Christian duty to identify injustices and act to prevent them, it seems reasonable to conclude that it ought to be the responsibility of the leaders of the Church. What then are the possibilities for us as individuals and leaders of our Church? Changing the attitudes of those who run these industrial processes will be difficult if not impossible without intervention from outside. This is one area where the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church could play a significant role just as they have done in their engagement with environmental issues. Examples here are H. A. H. Bartholomew’s Religion and Science environmental symposiums; his visit to the World Economic Forum at Davos and his recent coordinated action with Pope Francis where each convened business, scientific, and academic leaders in Rome and Athens respectively, to hasten the transition from fossil fuels to safe renewable energy.53 It is also possible therefore, to have this type of coordinated action for discussions on the environmental impact of an animal-based diet. In Chapters Six and Seven we see that those in authority are beginning to define cruelty, abuse and exploitation of animals within the animal food industries as a sin and an abuse of human freedom. We also have the following teaching from Abbot Khalil:

 50

Limouris, Justice, Peace, 24, no. 30. Limouris, 12, no 37. 52 Limouris, 12, no 38. 53 For an interesting commentary see Sachs article “Energy for the Common Good.” https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-pope-ecumenicalpatriarch-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2018-06. 51

Implications and Application

261

Christians need to avoid eating meat wherever possible out of mercy for the animals and care for creation.54

I have argued that abstinence from animal food products is a key element of effectively reducing animal suffering, environmental degradation and global warming. In defining the sin of exploitation and abuse in contemporary animal food production practices, the leaders of our Church would also be reaffirming Christ’s teaching in Luke 14:5 and the early Church tradition that we should act to prevent the suffering of God’s non-human beings. I argue that it will also be effective in moving our spiritual journey towards the likeness of an all-loving and compassionate God. I am encouraged that those with authority urge us to be a voice for the voiceless and I am encouraged that the Eastern Orthodox environmental debate urges actions rather than words. This process has begun via Eastern Orthodox discussions on environmental issues and I respectfully submit that these discussions must now extend into the areas of animal suffering that arise from the same mind-set of domination over the natural world. I am also encouraged by teachings on the negative soteriological implications for those who inflict abuse, those who are indifferent to it and those who are complicit in some way. H. A. H. Bartholomew speaks to the point: We are all painfully aware of the fundamental obstacle that confronts us in our work for the environment. It is precisely this: how to move from the theory to action, from word to deeds. 55

Part of this process requires us to be mindful of our language. If we continually refer to animals as ‘the environment’, ‘nature’ or ‘resources’, it is unlikely that we will ever view them as part of our community, worthy of justice, rights and mercy and, unlikely to consider them as worthy of our love and compassion. Let us instead, begin to refer to them as animals or better still cows, sheep, chickens, etc., so that we facilitate the process of seeing them as individual beings loved by God, rather than as units of production or disposable life. Our continuing walk to the abyss indicates that we as individuals have not sufficiently understood Eastern Orthodox teachings and the leaders of our Church and our academics must address this failure. Part of this process will be to ensure that our priests and laity understand the Eastern

 54 55

Private conversation 15th April 2018. Used with permission. Bartholomew, “Sacrifice: The Missing Dimension,” in Cosmic Grace, p. 275.

262

Chapter Nine

Orthodox teachings related to animal suffering. For this to occur we need our leaders to engage with the subject. I note why it is difficult for our leaders to advocate a vegan/vegetarian diet but there is another element to discuss. This form of diet is almost the equivalent of a permanent strict fast, which requires daily sacrifice. The concept of sacrifice is alien to many in contemporary societies but this is precisely where the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a vital role to play. Eastern Orthodoxy has the ascetic tradition and thus the authority to promote this diet, unlike other Christian faiths, secular ethicists or environmentalists. In order to facilitate this possibility, I end my discussion on the animal food industry by presenting some practical proposals: x Our leaders could urge Orthodox Christians to give up animal-food based diets entirely or, as a first step, abstain from foods produced in intensive farming practices. In so doing, the impact on animal suffering, human health and environmental damage would be enormous. x If our Patriarchs and Bishops were to declare their intention not to consume or provide animal products at their meetings this would send a strong message to both clergy and laity. x Our leaders could affirm the sin of inflicting harm upon God’s animal creation in order to achieve ever-increasing profits. x An essential part of this process requires educating our priests on the many problems associated with the animal food production industries. Seminary modules can be adapted from the module outlined in Appendix B. Training would enable our priests to teach a coherent message that will result in the reduction of animal suffering, improvements in our health and the environment and in advancing our spiritual journeys. 56 As a way of further facilitating the above, the Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals charity is working in an ecumenical context, to produce a framework to guide the policy and practice of Churches and other Christian institutions in relation to farmed animal welfare. This initiative aims to develop resources and work with institutions to support the development and implementation of policy in this area.57 The endorsement

 56

See www.ciwf.org.uk for details on the misuse of antibiotics in farming and the link with antibiotic resistance in humans. 57 This is an initiative by Prof Clough.

Implications and Application

263

of Eastern Orthodox Church involvement in such initiatives will also send a clear message to the manufacturers that it is time to change their practices. The Catholic group, Catholic Concern for Animals, is producing education material for its parishes in the UK. Its chief executive is happy for Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals to use/adapt this material, if necessary and I am grateful to him for his generosity of spirit and cooperation.58 Finally, to be clear, I do not state that all those working within this industry are cruel or evil people, though there are many recorded instances of people exhibiting such tendencies. What I do say, is that the system itself is a form of legalized violence to animals. It is also incompatible with the ancient and contemporary teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It ought therefore, to be rejected.

The Misuse of Human Freedom: The Animal Testing Model The second topic of investigation is the animal testing model. This discussion is as an extension of the Eastern Orthodox environmental debate on the misuse of technology. I examine this subject to see if the Eastern Orthodox Church can offer teachings and insights that can help reduce the animal suffering within this system. I have noted that we are to include ‘creation’, ‘nature’ and the ‘environment’, all of which include animals, into our community. We are also encouraged to extend justice and rights to the non-human creation and to treat ‘nature’ with the same sensitivity and tenderness as we would human beings. As Image of an allloving and compassionate God, this is only to be expected. The same challenging questions therefore arise. Do we apply these teachings to the animals used in the animal testing model? If not, what are our reasons for excluding them? We have engaged with discussions on the environmental destruction caused by the flawed teachings on dominion and an enormous amount of good has been the result. Church organisations around the world have been galvanised into action. What then are we to say about the suffering of ‘nature’ produced in the animal testing model? If we fail to address the

 58

A video announcing this initiative was shown at the Catholic Concern for Animals conference “Animal Advocacy in the Era of Laudato Si’.” 23rd June 2018, University of East Anglia. I attended and asked permission to use this material from the C. C. A.’s executive Chris Fegan and without hesitation was given an immediate yes.

264

Chapter Nine

fact that there are serious flaws in this model, are we guilty of indifference to the suffering of a huge section of creation? If so, are we guilty of some form of heresy? Mantzarides (1983)59 among others has acknowledged that historical anthropocentrism has resulted in our egocentric and utilitarian use of ‘nature’. This has resulted in a “separation and alienation” from ‘nature’, which has “been the source of an unbridled disregard for the impact of technology upon the environment.”60 For clarity, the forensic question to ask here is has this separation led to an unbridled disregard for the way we use technology on ‘animals’? In focusing on the human being, are we guilty of failing to question the suffering of other beings involved in the animal testing model? There are Eastern Orthodox teachings of relevance to this subject. Economou (1989)61 interprets dominion as the command to work, maintain and preserve God’s creation. He views the separation of humanity from God and nature (via the Reformation and Renaissance) as a heresy. He has also taught that the wrong use of technology has led to “waging war against nature” which eschatologically, he equates to the “Apocalyptic beast and his followers.”62 This definition is apt for discussions on the use of the animal testing model. Another pertinent comment is from Demetropoulos (1970) 63 who reminds us of the traditional Eastern Orthodox position when interpreting dominion as protecting creation rather than as “a license to exploit it.”64 H. A. H. Bartholomew also speaks to the point: [Humanity] has succumbed to a theory of development that values production over human dignity and wealth over human integrity...delicate ecological balances being upset by the uncontrolled destruction of animal and plant life or by a reckless exploitation of natural resources. 65

 59

Mantzarides, Christian Ethics, 354. Mantzarides, 354. 61 Economou, “Orthodoxy and Ecology.” 62 Economou, No 6. 63 Demetropoulos, Orthodox Christian Ethics includes a chapter on “Humanity and the Natural Environment,” 283-4. 64 Demetropoulos, Orthodox Christian Ethics, 285; also Sherrard, The Eclipse of Man and Nature; Met. John, “Preserving God’s Creation.” 65 Bartholomew, “Message for the Day of the Environment.” Sep 1st 1994. In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 42-45; also, “Message of the Primates,” 88-93; “Environment and Justice,” 170-173. 60

Implications and Application

265

Teachings on our misuse of technology and the recognition of the destruction and exploitation of “natural resources” are both welcome and apposite for this discussion. However, I again draw attention to the use of ‘resource’ and ask if this includes animals? If so, is it appropriate to refer to the animal creation in this way when we have previously noted patristic teachings that no life is to be thrown aside as worthless and on the sacredness, holiness and dignity of each created being? In light of such teachings, I advance the opinion that our present treatment of animals within the animal testing model ought to concern us. Despite this backdrop it may be that all Eastern Orthodox theologians and ethicists accept that animals are for our use; they are secondary to humans and can be used to improve human health. That might be a valid position in a secular world but as Christians, we are to reflect the Image of God. In light of patristic warnings on humanity’s propensity to abuse its freedom, Christians ought to be cautious of any blanket acceptance of a process that causes immense suffering and death to millions of animals each year. Such a process may in fact be a form of misuse and abuse of human freedom. Would it be right for example, to continue using the animal testing model if it is flawed? If the answer is yes, is there not the danger of continuing the destructive culture of domination? Such a view is rejected by the leaders of our Church and its academics regarding inanimate objects/resources and it would therefore, seem entirely appropriate to reject that mind-set for animate beings who suffer as we do. From the earliest teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, there have been guidelines for our behaviour and our use of technology or scientific procedures should be no exception. There is unfortunately a problem in achieving a clear voice from the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Church. Ethicists and theologians such as Harakas 66 and Bishop of Christopolis acknowledged this point: It is a fact that there is a weakness on the Orthodox side in reaching unanimous decisions in general, and specifically on bioethical issues.67

In order to address this weakness, Griniezakis informs us of the creation of the Pan-Orthodox Committee of Bioethics in Crete in 2011. Griniezakis notes that unlike other Christian Churches the ‘problem’ of the

 66

Harakas, “For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics,” 1985. https://www.goarch.org/-/for-the-health-of-body-and-soul-aneastern-orthodox-introduction-to-bioethics. 67 Griniezakis, Introduction to Bioethics.

266

Chapter Nine

Orthodox Church is that it is “still relying on the decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the Holy Bible and the Sacred Tradition.” This means, “everything stated by the Orthodox Bioethics Committee should be in accordance with what has been said in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church Fathers.” 68 He adds, “The work of the InterOrthodox Commission for this reason is special and unique. It is called to apply eternal principles to finite situations.” 69 I base my arguments on similar considerations. However, whilst researching the various pronouncements from Eastern Orthodox committees and websites, there are few comments on animal experimentation let alone a detailed analysis or definitive position on the animal testing model. There is nonetheless, useful contemporary material to help define some parameters for this discussion. In Chapter Seven Bishop Isaias gives a clear teaching, which should act as the basepoint for further discussion: If there are alternatives, they must use them.

In outlining the parameters of scientific research Vachicouras (2003) 70 states that our need to reflect the Image of God restrains human freedom: Freedom of scientific research is preserved in the image of God in man who is a creative being. The freedom of the human person to create however must be accompanied with discernment. The freedom of scientific research is preserved only in divine origin. Science and technology devoid of divine origin leads to other forms of evil. 71

Whilst we have not answered the question posed, we have established that research has limits and that those limits come in the form of the Image of God. This has been the argument throughout this work. Crucially, this Image not only creates, it also offers protection, mercy and compassion. H. A. H. Bartholomew offers further guidance and draws our attention to the point on the dangers of predetermined conclusions and a blanket acceptance of certain methodologies:

 68

Griniezakis, Introduction to Bioethics. Breck makes similar points and are discussed later in this chapter. 70 Vachicouras, The Orthodox Church and problems of Bioethics and Ecology, 5. Seminar on methodologies in approaching social and ethical issues. 71 Here we may think of the potential problems as a result of the development of gene-editing. Whilst there are great benefits to be had in removing the codes for mutation/disease, it also creates the potential for other life forms and eugenics. Gene-editing has moved from primates to human fetuses. 69

Implications and Application

267

Naturally, we are not opposed to scientific research, so long as it provides beneficial services to humanity and the environment. Thus, the use of scientific determinations, for instance, for the healing of illness is surely acceptable; but the forceful commercial exploitation of resources from contemporary chemical and biological technology in the light of some predetermined conclusion that these are not harmful to humanity, is certainly denounced because it has repeatedly led to tragic consequences for humanity and the environment.72

Again, are animals included in the terms ‘resource’ or ‘environment’? If they are and if the processes are not of benefit to either, it appears we should reject them. He is clear on the rejection of “the forceful commercial exploitation of resources” and once again, we enquire if animals are included in his use of ‘resource’? If they are then we appear to have further reason to reject the animal testing model. As noted, animals are frequently referred to as resources rather than as sentient beings which in and of itself supports the separation referred to by Mantzarides. I repeat an earlier point; who is likely to consider extending justice, rights and compassionate treatment to animals if we continually refer to them as a resource?73 A leading Eastern Orthodox ethicist holds the following opinion: Animal experimentation is not prohibited as long as the experiments are necessary to test drugs, surgical procedures, or other medical protocols. Animal experiments should he conducted humanely and designed to minimize pain.74

Whilst this ethicist accepts animal testing, it is not without restriction: as long as they are necessary; designed to reduce animal pain and conducted humanely. The obvious question arising here is can we ensure these parameters are met? There are other Eastern Orthodox sources to help us. In the ecclesial text for 1st September, we ask God for “all” to be free from “harm” and “from every abuse.” Some might argue that this text and those like it are mere wordsmith techniques. My response is similar to that given by McGuckin in his discussion on patristic poetry; I believe there is evidence



72 My emphasis. Bartholomew, “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation,” 2013. 73 Linzey offers a detailed analysis of our use of language in section two of Why Animal Suffering Matters. 74 My emphasis. The reference here is omitted out of compassion for the ethicist. I am unhappy about identifying those whom I later criticize. Academics will no doubt recognise the ethicist but the wider audience need not know the source.

268

Chapter Nine

of spiritual insight in ecclesial texts referencing the suffering of creation. If we are not to reject the spiritual acuity in patristic poetry, I submit that we should not reject the spiritual acuity in ecclesial texts. This Church service brings an anamnesis of St. Irenaeus’s teaching that we are to include “all things” in our deliberations and, of patristic teachings on the unacceptability of inflicting pain and suffering to animals, as exemplified by St. Isaac’s teachings on a compassionate and merciful heart: ...which can no longer bear to see or learn from others of any suffering, even the smallest pain, being inflicted upon a creature. 75

These teachings are clear but inconvenient if applied. The obvious question arising here is, is inconvenience enough of a reason to reject the teachings? At this point and despite the ‘problem’ outlined by Griniezakis, there appear to be parameters for this discussion: x If there are alternatives, we must use them. x Scientific research is acceptable but requires important restrictions on human freedom. x One restriction is that we are to reflect the Image of an all-loving and compassionate God. x Scientific research is acceptable so long as it provides benefit to humanity and the environment. x We are to reject the forceful commercial exploitation of resources from contemporary chemical and biological technology in the light of some predetermined conclusion that these are not harmful to humanity. x Eastern Orthodox ecclesial texts specifically ask that “all” are to be free from harm and from every abuse. x We must be mindful of our ignorance because it has repeatedly led to tragic consequences for humanity and the environment. x Some argue that animals may be used “when necessary” but animal experiments should he conducted humanely and designed to minimize pain. The first question to tackle again relates to terminology. Does ‘the environment’ in the caveat above include animals? In light of the teachings both ancient and modern presented throughout this work,

 75

Isaac the Syrian, Mystic Treaties, Homily 74. In Lossky, Mystical Theology, 111.

Implications and Application

269

together with our rejection of a mind-set of domination, I submit that the answer ought to be yes. If I am correct, we have an anomaly. Despite our tradition of reflecting the Image of an all-living and compassionate God and the encouragement to extend justice, compassion, mercy and delicate, loving relationships to animals, we have accepted a research model which causes incalculable harm and suffering to millions of animals each year. When the procedures undertaken in this model are examined, it is clear that many tests cause severe physical pain, injury and death; many are conducted without anesthetic or pain relief; all cause varying degrees of psychological distress and all of them are conducted against the animals’ will. One might think that the principle of the 3R’s: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, established over fifty years ago, would have helped address the problem but the numbers of animals used in testing continue to increase.76 All of these outcomes stand against our traditional teachings of our role as Image of a loving and compassionate God; of our duty to care for “all things” in His creation and our prayers that all creation will be “free from harm and from every abuse.” Whilst some may cringe at the following definition, this does not detract from its truthfulness – if such treatments were performed on humans, they would be denounced as torture. Why then do we accept such procedures for non-human animals who suffer as we do? In order to address the anomaly, we need to understand why it has been created. I posit two reasons: (1) We have a “predetermined conclusion” that the animal testing model is “not harmful to humanity.” (2) Certain historical theological and philosophical teachings have determined that the non-human creation has no future life with God. I examine both in turn.

Examining the Animal Testing Model In the Cyprus Case Study, my spiritual Father’s initial reaction was quite angry and evidence of hostility towards animal protectionists was evident. However, I was taken aback when, just before I left, he said the following, in a voice that was full of empathy:

 76

For the principles of the 3R’s see The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, first published in 1959 by Russell and Burch.

270

Chapter Nine Christina, you know there are animals that spend their entire pitiful lives in laboratories.

He did not engage with this subject in our discussions and I doubt that he had studied or researched the abuse to animals in laboratories but through snippets from the media or in other discussions, he had acquired knowledge that upset him. It was clear from the way he spoke, that he had a degree of empathy with the plight of these animals. Whilst Economou may not have been thinking of the subject of animal testing when he describes the misuse of technology as “war against nature” this is certainly how those writing on the subject view the treatment of animals used in various types of research laboratories. 77 If we explore the wider canvass, we find commentaries on the acknowledgment of animal pain, not only from ancient voices within the patristic corpus but also from modern voices such as Lewis (1950)78 and from Farrer (1962)79. In his discussions on vivisection and the moral status of pain, Lewis (1990)80 discusses suffering and his belief that pain does not originate from the divine will but from a misuse of creaturely freewill. He asks if it were a form of evil and if so, how we justify vivisection. He rejects vivisection, not only because of the harm caused to animals, but also because it indicates a culture that accepts great suffering for subjective benefit. He states that this acceptance or desensitization has serious consequences for the marginalized: the ‘other’, the weak, despised and rejected within our societies. This again links to patristic and contemporary Orthodox teachings that in our abuse of the creature we harm ourselves. This is also a basic premise of Western theologians and ethicists who question the use of animals in laboratory testing. 81 One forensic question to ask is what do we as Eastern Orthodox theologians and ethicists know of the animal testing model? I believe it would be useful to provide information in order to increase our knowledge in this field.

 77

Linzey describes such procedures as morally indefensible. Animal Theology, 106-113. 78 See Lewis, The Problem of Pain, “Animal Pain” Ch. 9, for discussions on the origins of evil as it relates to the suffering of animals. 79 Farrer, Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited, 104-5. 80 Lewis, “A Case for Abolition.” In Linzey and Regan, Animals and Christianity: A Book of Readings, 160-164. 81 Linzey, Animal Theology, 134-5; also, Why Animal Suffering Matters; also, McLaughlin, “Evidencing the Eschaton: Progressive-Transformative Animal Welfare in the Church Fathers.”

Implications and Application

271

As previously noted, it is common belief that the case for using animal testing for the good of humankind is proven. If true, this might address part of H. A. H. Bartholomew’s caveat above, though it would still fail on the requirement to be of benefit for the animals within the environment. The important questions here are, is it right to make this assumption or is our acceptance of the model part of a “predetermined conclusion that these are not harmful to humanity?” When we examine the available research on the animal testing model, such as Linzey and Linzey (2017)82 and Bailey and Taylor (2016)83 we find that there are few systematic studies examining the validity of this model. In answer to the question posed in their article entitled “Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research?” Pound and Bracken (2014) conclude that it is: …nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.84

Knight (2011) had already alerted us to this problem: …the utility of many animal experiments in advancing human healthcare or even biomedical knowledge of significance is poor. 85

These two statements alone ought to concern us. The obvious question arising is whether these statements can be verified? If this were not the case, we would expect the licensing of a large percentage of the drugs tested on animals for human use. The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a well-respected and authoritative body and their comments here address this specific point:

 82

Linzey and Linzey, The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments, references over 200 different research papers and reports on the theme. Also, Knight, The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. 83 Bailey and Taylor, “Non-human Primates in Neuroscience Research: The Case Against its Scientific Necessity.” I am grateful to Prof. Knight for this reference. 84 Pound and Bracken, “Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research?” BMJ 348 (3387); also, BMJ editor F. Godlee’s accompanying editorial, “How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research?” BMJ 348: (3719). 85 Knight, Costs and Benefits, 4, 57-9. For the number of animals used, see 9-17. For species, sources and categories of use, see 18-28; also, USFDA (2004) Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products.

272

Chapter Nine Overall, in the US, 92% of drugs that pass pre-clinical tests, mostly animal tests, fail to make it to the market because they are proven to be ineffective and or unsafe in people. 86

This report also concludes that if topical medicines are excluded the failure rate is around 97%. The first observation from the FDS report is that the failure rate of the animal testing model is extraordinarily high. The second observation is that the animal testing model is unreliable and thus flawed. The model fails the caveat that the animal testing model is essential for the advancement of human health. In fact, such conclusions ought to lead us to ask whether the model is a benefit or a hindrance to human health. My argument here is that its use is an example of the “predetermined conclusion” that the model is “not harmful to humanity.” The next question is to ask why the failure rate is so high. There are several contributing factors and the most obvious is that the species of animals used are not human; we are not dogs, rabbits, donkeys etc. This in and of itself ought to raise considerable doubt on the efficacy of the model. An equally pertinent point is that animals experience physical pain and mental suffering, which includes fear, trauma, stress, distress, anticipation and terror, all of which alter their physiology; if one or a combination of these factors affects the animal, the results will be suspect.87 Knight (2011) includes several other factors in calculating stress and suffering, such as capture from the wild, transportation, housing etc., which he concludes, alter the physiology and mental capacities of the animals over time. 88 He states that these factors, in addition to creating significant animal welfare and ethical problems distort a wide range of experimental outcomes, such as those dependent on accurate determination of physiological,

 86

My emphasis. USFDA, Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products, 2004. 87 Linzey, “Cruelty to Animals is as if a Man did not Love God.” In The Ark: Journal of Catholic Concern for Animals, 220 (Spring): 5. We may think this is a modern thought but as previously noted, Philo gives similar commentary when condemning practices which cause mental anguish to cows separated from their newly born calves. 88 I add a personal note here to support Knight’s point. When my dogs were in quarantine in Bahrain I arrived to find three adult Baboons in the same block and that one had escaped. The chaos and the fear and distress of the apes were evident from their screams, their throwing of faeces and the attempt of the escapee to avoid recapture. The process took nearly an hour whereupon the animals were removed to the laboratory at Bahrain University.

Implications and Application

273

behavioural, or cognitive characteristics in animal models. 89 This also raises serious doubts over the efficacy of this model and this too ought to concern us. There is another factor to consider which again brings us back to H. A. H. Bartholomew’s point on the dangers of the “predetermined conclusion that these are not harmful to humans” and the ethicist’s caveat that they are “necessary.” If we examine the evidence, the drugs that are licensed are not universally safe for humans and the tragedy of giving thalidomide to pregnant women is a well-known case in point. This sadly, is not the only example. As I write this chapter the scandal of the epilepsy drug, sodium valproate (Epilim) is breaking news. Since its license, circa 20,000 children in the UK have physical abnormalities, autism, low IQ and learning disabilities if exposed to the drug while in the womb. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have now changed the licensing because up to four in ten babies are at risk of developmental disorders and one in ten are at risk of birth defects.90 This is not a lone example. The organisation Nurses Movement for Responsible Medicine provides further examples and comments of licensed drugs that have caused considerable damage to humans. I condense their commentary: Few people in the West are aware of the Clioquinol tragedy. Clioquinol caused 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis in Japan alone. This drug also caused a new disease called SMON. "Clioquinol was tested on rats, cats, beagles and rabbits with no evidence of neurotoxicity." "Oraflex (Opren) an antiarthritic drug meant to alleviate the pain and frequently crippling limitations of arthritis was found safe in nonhuman primates, at 7 times the maximum tolerated human dose for a year. It caused death in a number of elderly patients, mainly from liver damage." "Butazolidine, a pain killer, caused kidney and red blood cell damage." "Chloramphenicol caused bone marrow destruction and fatal aplastic anaemia…though human cell culture could have found what animal testing has failed to show." "Isoprenaline aerosol during the 1960s, thousands of young asthmatics died following the use of Isoprenaline aerosol inhalers. Animal tests did not show nor predict the danger…cats could tolerate 175 times the dose found dangerous to asthmatics and the adverse complications could not be reproduced in guinea pigs, dogs and monkeys at doses much higher than the recommended dosage." "Eraldin a heart medication; some

 89

Knight, Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments, 36. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43863191 24th April 2018. Adesina, BBC Inside Out, London, UK 22 January 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42717083. 90

Also, Zack

274

Chapter Nine patients who received it suffered intestinal and eye problems, blindness and many deaths resulted." "Phenformin, to treat diabetes, caused 1,000 deaths annually until withdrawn from the market." "Amydopyrine a pain killer caused a nasty blood disease." "Reserpine to treat hypertension may cause restlessness, nightmares and depression, pancreatitis, severe anaemia and kidney failure. A number of epidemiologic studies pointed to an increased risk of breast cancer in women. It may cause foetal harm when given to pregnant women." "Methotrexate to treat leukaemia and psoriasis caused intestinal haemorrhage, anaemia and tumours." "Mitotane for leukaemia caused kidney damage." "Cyclophosphamide used for cancer and transplants…led to liver and lung damage." "Urethane for leukaemia caused cancer of the liver, lungs and bone marrow." "Kanamycin an antibiotic caused deafness and kidney damage." "Methaqualon a tranquilizer caused severe mental disturbances." "Maxiton diet pills caused damage to the heart and nervous system." "Halcion a hypnotic; reports of severe psychic problems with its use are surfacing which prompted Britain to ban its use." "Tegretol for epilepsy, two potentially fatal blood diseases: aplastic anaemia and agranulocytosis are 5-8 times more likely to occur in patients on Tegretol than in the general population. Epidemiologic findings suggest an increased incidence of birth defects when pregnant women used Tegretol."91

Italics draw attention to the fact that alternatives are available and can offer data that are more reliable. Despite the animal testing model, all these licensed products resulted in injury, suffering and in some cases human death. In addition to the poor ratio of usable drugs to animals used, there is now the additional problem of human safety for those drugs that are licensed. An obvious criticism here is that I am simply selecting evidence from scientists that have a bias against animal testing. This statement from a report from leaders in the drug development industries addresses that criticism: The poor predictability of animal experiments is one of the major challenges facing the drug discovery industry.92

This would not be the first time that manufacturers were aware of problems but failed to inform the public. A forensic question to ask here is if this level of failure arose in any other industry, would we expect industry to continue with the model’s use or substitute it with procedures that are more reliable? The answer is obvious. Why there has not been

 91

My emphasis. See, www.nmrm.org. Palfreyman, Vinod and Blander, “The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery.” In Drug Discovery World Fall (2002): 33-44. 92

Implications and Application

275

greater investment in alternative procedures is probably due to economics/profit and the lack of any challenge to the animal testing model by those other than animal protectionists. Many in society still believe philosophical and theological teachings that God created animals solely for our use but this is part of the second discussion and so I put this aside for the moment. There is evidence of change. Sir David Attenborough, along with 20 other scientists, calls for an end to animal testing on primates and urges the use of currently available alternatives: The recognition that apes, certainly, and to an extent other primates, are so akin to ourselves, and can suffer so much, as we can, has transformed our attitude, or should have transformed our attitude, to using them for our own benefit. They are sentient beings that have mental lives comparable to ours, and sensitivities, and pain and deprivation mean things to them, just as they mean things to us.93 We, the undersigned, are concerned at the level of suffering involved in many neuroscience experiments on non-human primates, especially where fluid deprivation and movement restraint are involved, and believe that there has now been sufficient progress in human-based alternatives to call into serious question whether further research of this type is necessary. We note the recent research in this area published in ATLA [Bailey J & Taylor K. (2016). Non-human Primates in Neuroscience Research: The Case Against its Scientific Necessity. ATLA 44, 43-69]. We therefore call on bodies responsible for the funding and licensing of this type of research to review their policies and specifically to end support for experiments involving deprivation of fluids and movement restraint.94

 93

https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/what-we-do/breaking-news/sir-davidattenborough-calls-end-brain-experiments-monkeys. Also, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-attenborough-primatesneuroscientists-cruel-brain-tests-a7230711.html. 94 My emphasis. Signatories: Sir David Attenborough, broadcaster and naturalist; Simon Bearder, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Department of Anthropology, Oxford Brookes University; Marc Bekoff, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado. Nedim C. Buyukmihci, VMD, Emeritus Professor, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis; Herbert H. Covert, PhD, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Boulder; Paul Furlong, PhD, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging, Director, Aston Brain Centre, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University. John P. Gluck, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico; Research Professor Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University; Jane Goodall, PhD, DBE-Founder of the Jane

276

Chapter Nine

The italics bring into focus the scientific community’s recognition that there are human-based alternatives to primate testing already available. Importantly, their arguments are equally valid for all other species of sentient creatures used in the animal testing model. The obvious question to ask is why scientists are not using suitable alternatives if they are available for use. I have given my answer. There is also the possibility of using ‘irrational’ creatures as units of ‘disposable life’ but again I leave this aside for the moment. As noted, alternatives to the animal testing model are available and two useful journals are Alternatives to Laboratory Animals95 and Laboratory Animals.96 Several animal welfare organisations’ websites list examples of alternatives such as In vitro; Microfluidic chip; Micro-dosing; Imaging studies and computer models and simulations.97 The Linzey and Linzey (2017) report gives examples of adult stem cell research; human organson-a-chip; lab-grown human organs and systems biology and compare the

 Goodall Institute and UN Messenger of Peace. Colin Groves, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Bio anthropology, Australian National University; Eleonora Gullone, PhD, Affiliate Associate Professor, Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology, Monash University; Steven Harnad, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) and Professor of Cognitive Science at the University of Southampton. Catherine Hobaiter, PhD, Lecturer, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, St Andrews University; Jessica A. Mayhew, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology & Museum Studies and Primate Behavior & Ecology Program, Central Washington University; Dr Monika Merkes, PhD, (Public Health) Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing, La Trobe University. Anna Nekaris, PhD, Professor in Anthropology and Course Leader, MSc Primate Conservation, Oxford Brookes University; Hugh Notman, PhD, Associate Dean, Learning Technologies & Associate Professor, Anthropology, Biological, Athabasca University. Ian Redmond, OBE, Field biologist and conservationist, Ambassador, UNEP Convention on Migratory Species, former Envoy for UN-GRASP; Vernon Reynolds, PhD, Emeritus Professor, School of Anthropology, Oxford University and Founder of the Budongo Conservation Field Station, Uganda; Lori K. Sheeran, PhD, Professor, Department of Anthropology & Museum Studies and Primate Behavior & Ecology Program, Central Washington University. Jo Thompson, PhD, Executive Director, Lukuru Foundation, Democratic Republic of Congo; Richard Wrangham, PhD, Ruth B. Moore Professor and former Chair of Biological Anthropology, Harvard University and President Emeritus, International Primatological Society. 95 http://www.atla.org.uk. 96 http://lan.sagepub.com. 97 http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org.

Implications and Application

277

effectiveness of these methods to existing animal models.98 Sharma (2015) suggests alternatives for use in university Zoology and Life Science courses in India (and elsewhere) and, makes us aware of the link between educational institutions, suppliers and hunters: I estimate that employing these alternatives will save roughly 19 million animals belonging to a variety of species, from fish to mammals. In addition, the adoption of these non-animal methods will deal a death blow to the well-organised nexus between educational institutions and those who catch, kill and supply animals…inspection of breeding business have discovered ill and wounded animals crammed inside soiled cages, rats embalmed alive and workers who killed frogs by slamming their heads against hard surfaces. 99

His comments on the link between hunting and experimentation and the abusive conditions and treatment of the animals should not surprise us. He also mentions the reestablishment of the concept of ahimsa in using humane alternatives and Christians may use the same argument using our concept of the non-violent Christ. In his summary of this section of the Linzey report, Andrew Linzey states: The upshot of these scientific developments in cutting-edge human-based testing models is that it is no longer accurate or reasonable (if it ever was) to say that the only moral choice is between experimenting on animals and giving up on medical progress. This is a false dilemma. The choice instead is the choice between experimenting on animals and using improved human-based methods of testing.100

This indicates a further problem in the animal testing model-the phenomenon of publication bias. Knight outlines the problem: Research demonstrating ‘no effect’ is less likely to be published than research falsely indicating an effect (false positives). When investigators later review the published literature, they find only the latter and draw false conclusions about the drug effects. This is partly why animal research translates so poorly to human patients.101

 98

2015:4.23-29. Published as Linzey & Linzey, 2017. Dr Sharma is a member of EGC-MHRD Core Expert Committee to Consider Discontinuation of Dissection of animals in Zoology/Life Science in Indian Universities and Colleges, The Ark (Spring 2012):29-30. 100 Linzey and Linzey, The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments, 4.29 101 Discussions at Winchester University in 2017. 99

278

Chapter Nine

In essence, scientists are less likely to publish failures. This in turn, gives a distorted view of the efficacy of the animal testing model. In light of the above evidence, we gain an insight into why there are serious doubts both inside and outside of the scientific community on the reliability of the animal testing model to predict the suitability of a variety of medicines/drugs for human health and thus its advancement. In light of the above evidence, I submit that the animal testing model fails several of the previously outlined caveats and parameters for scientific research. It ought therefore, to be rejected. Some important ethical and moral questions remain. x Are we right to sacrifice millions of God’s creatures, many of whom suffer and die in immense pain, in order to achieve such a tiny proportion of usable products? x Do the ends justify the means? x If we accept the continuing use of the animal testing model despite the disturbing evidence above and regardless of the animal suffering involved, are we not in danger of teaching that only human suffering is relevant to us and to God? x If so, are we guilty of the same type of heresy the Fathers fought so hard to prevent? It is easy to discuss this topic in isolation from the practical realities of the animals in laboratories. This is entirely understandable because many tests are extremely distressing; yet if we are to define our position on this subject it cannot be in ignorance of the harrowing facts. As noted one ethicist states that animal experimentation is acceptable but adds that the process is designed to “limit pain” and be used “humanely.” Is this the case? Out of compassion, I provide only two examples and condense commentary on them. 102 The first concerns beagle dogs who, it is important to note, were undergoing tests not for a new cure of some human disease but for a share in a lucrative market where drugs were already available: This resulted in the open sores and blisters on the dogs’ backs…Whilst cleaning out the cages, I regularly found blood, vomit and diarrhoea on the floor. Many dogs were very ill. They were extremely thin with their fur

 102

One can easily access the range of processes via the net or animal protection groups who specialise in this field such as the national anti-vivisection society, established in 1875: http://www.navs.org.uk.

Implications and Application

279

standing on end. They were visibly shaking and often so scared they were unable to leave their cages.103

Bearing in mind the aforementioned comments of the need to extend community, justice, rights and delicacy in our treatment to animals and the caveats on proof of benefit and avoidance of pain, is it acceptable to allow animals to suffer the agonies associated with such tests simply to increase a manufacturer’s profits? This process and those like it fit within H. A. H. Bartholomew’s caveat that we should reject “forceful commercial exploitation.” As such, presumably we are to reject its use. The second example is a non-invasive procedure used by experimental psychologists and is a condensed extract from Rowland’s contribution to The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence: The experiments involved a shuttle-box. This box consists in two compartments separated by a barrier. The floor of each compartment is an electrified grid. The psychologist…would put a dog in one compartment, and then give an intense electric shock to its feet. Instinctively, the dog jumps over from one compartment to the other. They would then repeat this procedure over and over-several hundred times in a typical experiment. Each time however, the jump is more and more difficult for the dog because the experimenters are gradually making the barrier higher and higher. Eventually the dog can’t make the jump and falls to the electrified grid beneath it. In a variation, the experimenters electrify the floor on both sides of the barrier. No matter where the dog jumps, it is going to be shocked…and so the dog jumps from one electrified grid to the other…exhausted, the dog lies on the floor urinating, defecating, yelping, shrieking, trembling. After ten to twelve days of these sorts of trials, the dog ceases to resist the shock. On these experiments, I think, we find an instructive distillation of the concept of human evil. 104

The language used to describe this ‘non-invasive’ process, disguises the harmful reality. Non-invasive tests like this continue in experimental laboratories around the world. There is no data bank to record such tests or their outcomes; indeed, there is no data bank on animal testing as there is in human testing. 105 As a result, there is nothing to prevent the replication

 103

Aaltola, Animal Suffering, 34-45. Also, BUAV at http://www.buav.org/undercover-investigations/secret-suffering. 104 Rowland, “The Structure of Evil.” In Linzey, The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence, 202. 105 I wrote to the Gates foundation in 2017 outlining the problem from a human health perspective and asked if they would establish the data bank sadly, they were not interested.

280

Chapter Nine

of this or any other test; the replication of the suffering involved or the inevitable fate of the animals used in other laboratories throughout the world. Such processes give rise to many questions relating to the previously identified caveats: x Where is the necessary humane treatment? x Where is the necessary requirement to design tests that limit animal pain? x Where is the necessary benefit to the animals here? x Where is the inclusion into our community or extension of justice and rights to the animals within the animal testing model? x Where is the compassionate and merciful treatment? x Where is the Image of God? My answer to this last question is if there is an Image of God in these scenarios, it lies not with the humans but with the suffering and innocent non-human animals. It would seem reasonable to conclude that many senior Eastern Orthodox theologians if not all, are unaware of the various problems thus far described. If we as individuals or leaders of our Church are to speak on behalf of the voiceless, we have the responsibility to examine if the animal testing model is essential to human health and of benefit to the animals within our environment. Even if it were, should we not be concerned over the immense suffering of each individual creature? Could their individual suffering not be a warning/indication of another misuse of our freedom? I am reminded here of the biblical and patristic teaching that just because some things are lawful, they are not necessarily expedient or righteous and of St Ambrose’s teaching that we are to be “above the Law in virtue.” 106 In addition to doubts over the reliability of the animal testing model for the advancement of human health, we must also note that millions of animal lives are lost each year in immensely painful toxicology/product testing. I condense the research: In Europe alone, tens of millions of rats, rabbits, mice, dogs, monkeys and other animals are routinely force-fed household chemicals, fertilizers, paint-strippers [etc] in order to see what levels are toxic to them [and] die of convulsions and internal bleeding. Often analgesia is not used (NCR 2009). When animals do not die on the operating table or in their cages, they are killed by a broad range of methods…decapitation, neck breaking



106 Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke, 7.186, 311-12.

Implications and Application

281

to inhalation of CO2 gas, proven to cause animals at times great aversion and distress.107

If, as H. A. H. Bartholomew teaches, it is a sin to force-feed animals in order to produce our food is it also a sin to force-feed animals harmful products so that we can brush our teeth, paint our homes or clean our toilets? In addition, if there is a product already available on the market, for example, household bleach or oven cleaner and a different company wishes to produce a similar product, the new manufacturer repeats the same tests. The question arising here is if these practices are examples of the right use of God’s creatures? Do they comply with the above restrictions and caveats or, are they further examples of the misuse of human freedom? Here I am again reminded of St Gregory’s teaching on “Use; Do not misuse!” Whilst Messer (2009)108 acknowledges the complexity and difficulty of this theme, Knight alerts us to another aspect of this subject and provides evidence of “a widespread failure of ethical oversight”: ...due to an over-reliance on the assumption that invasive experiments on chimpanzees and other laboratory animals were likely to be of substantial use in advancing biomedical knowledge. 109

This “assumption” relates to H. A. H. Bartholomew’s caveat outlined above. In addition, there are many undercover investigations exposing abuse to animals by technicians with “cruel dispositions” working in laboratories. We must also note that in many countries there are no regulations on animal welfare let alone guidelines on their use within laboratories. Taken as a whole it is clear that the scale of animal suffering

 107

LaFollette and Shanks, Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. Also, Greek and Greek, Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals. Aaltola, Animal Suffering: Philosophy and Culture. Rowan, Loew and Weer, The Animal Research Controversy: Protest, Process, and Public Policy-An Analysis of Strategic Issues. Rollin, The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science; Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research Issues; The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy. See also https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/ld50.html. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicologyandpharmaceutical-science/draize-test. 108 Messer, “Human, Animals, Evolution and Ends.” In Deane-Drummond and Clough, Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals, 211-227, especially 219. 109 My emphasis. Knight, Costs and Benefits, 189.

282

Chapter Nine

within this model is immense and the animal testing model itself open to challenge. Some might argue that Church involvement in such subjects is a step too far, yet we are already involved in similar discussions in bio-medical ethics. 110 Harakas opened this subject to others such as John and Lyn Breck, who synthesize traditional Orthodox teachings with complex contemporary scientific issues such as the use of human embryos in medical research. 111 Discussions on the use of animals are therefore entirely acceptable. Breck (2005) is not completely silent on animal suffering in animal testing and his language in the following quote indicates his opinion: All of this, in addition to the deadly abuse heaped on animals by the cosmetics industry, on human embryos by the pharmaceuticals industry ... Ours is indeed a culture of death, and we fixate with reason on the smallest and most vulnerable of its members. 112

I posit that non-human animal beings fit into Breck’s definition of “the smallest and most vulnerable” members of society and in light of the increasingly disturbing evidence concerning the efficacy of the animal testing model, I advance the opinion that animals warrant not only legal protection but also inclusion into Eastern Orthodox theological and ethical discussions on this subject. It is easier to argue against force-feeding lipsticks, face-creams, hair dyes, etc., to animals, than it is for the argument against the testing of medicines, yet as we have seen, not all tests are ‘necessary’; many are simply economically desirable for the shareholders and the vast majority of tests fail to advance human health. Whilst Breck acknowledges the “deadly abuse” to animals in cosmetic testing, there is no development of the theme in his following discussion on medical research.113 He does however inform us of the difficulties in working in such areas: Orthodox ethics draws on the teachings of the Church. This is not as obvious as it may sound, for many of the ethical decisions before us today involve, for example, cloning, stem cells, or eugenics were not envisioned during the formative periods of the Church’s teaching on the human person. This means that we have to acquire a ‘scriptural mind’ and a

 110

Guroian, “Fr. Stanley Harakas: Introductory Comments,” 15-17. Breck and Breck, Stages on Life's Way; Yarri, The Ethics of Animal Experimentation: A Critical Analysis and Constructive Christian Proposal, 4-5. 112 My emphasis. Breck and Breck, Stages on Life's Way, 28-9. 113 Breck and Breck, 34. 111

Implications and Application

283

‘patristic mind’; we have to become so steeped in the tradition of the Church that our thinking naturally takes its contours. In this way, even situations that were unforeseeable to the ancients can be informed by the foundations they laid…in order properly to do ethics...we need to be conversant with science…there are no canons about cloning, in vitro fertilisation this means that ethics consists in the art of applying timeless principles to time-bound situations. Orthodox ethics constantly strives to strike the right relationship between the absolute and the situational, between universal, unchanging, timeless truths and guidelines and the particular, variable and sometimes terribly messy situation before us at a given moment. 114

I agree with him on the difficulties in discussing ‘new’ themes, yet I have attempted to prove that the subject of animal suffering and protection is not new. Apart from the Old Testament texts in Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy and elsewhere, we have Christ asking “Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well will not immediately pull him out?” in order to show us that love, compassion and action are expected at all times.115 Perhaps another reason we are persuaded of the necessity of this modelling is due to the enormous amount of money spent on marketing by the ‘vested interests’ using the procedure. When we consider that in a single year the cosmetic companies in the U.S. spent $8.5 million on anti, anti-vivisection activities it is not surprising that the voices of those who speak against the animal testing model are frequently missing or muffled.116 One must ask why there is a need to spend these huge sums of money, when the resources of those standing against the practice are so small. Is it as Linzey and others suggest that the moral weight of the counter argument is stronger? One might also believe that in light of the ban on selling cosmetics tested on animals in the EU that the cosmetic industry would accept the situation. The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals informs us that this is not the case and that cosmetic companies are trying to reverse the existing law: Animal welfare could be threatened after a judicial review-brought by cosmetics ingredients manufacturers seeking to allow cosmetics newly

 114

Breck and Breck, 13-4. Chapter Three. 116 Linzey and Linzey The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments; also, The Times Higher, Dec 23, 1994, relating to Guardian 4th Aug, 1989:22. For a detailed discussion on the theme see Linzey, Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology and Practical Ethics, esp., Ch. 2:1 “Confronting the Powers.” 115

284

Chapter Nine tested on animals to be sold in Europe again , was referred to the European Court of Justice.117

As theologians, we are aware that evil comes in many guises and requires constant feeding and I submit that these attempts to persuade the public and lawmakers that painful and lethal cosmetic testing on animals should continue, is one such example. If all of the above were not reason enough to reject the model of animal testing there are further aspects to consider. By allowing the testing on animals, we have opened the door to testing on humans. Bishop Griniezakis118 alerts us to the problem: Well known are the heinous crimes conducted in the last century, not only during the Second World War, but also with each subsequent violation of the Nuremberg Code. For instance, we know that the dysentery vaccine was tested on children in orphanages; mentally ill patients and prisoners were infected with the malaria virus; and similar experiments were conducted while researching yellow fever, measles, syphilis and other diseases. “More recently, it was discovered that during the Cold War, hospitalized patients were injected with plutonium and uranium; institutionalized children were injected with radioactive material; and experiments that exposed the sexual organs of prisoners to radiation were also conducted. Moreover, during this time, the CIA distributed hallucinogenic drugs (LSD) to patients without their knowledge or consent”119

He asks important and challenging questions which apply to the subject of experimentation in general: Who ought to undergo such experiments? Is it possible for medical science to progress without human experimentation? Is it possible for us to accept research on human embryos? Can Christian anthropology acknowledge the human being as merely biological material? Can we place barriers on research given that it is impossible for the Church to limit such work? Is it morally acceptable to change the genetic lines of plants and animals? Does everyone’s life have the same value? Do animals have rights? All of his questions can be applied to the process of animal testing.

 117

Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, Animal Life, (Spring 2015): 8. Griniezakis, “Introduction to Bioethics: A Brief Summary.” 119 ਝȜĮȤȚȫIJȘ ȈIJĮȝȐIJȘ, «ǺȚȠȘșȚțȒ, ਝȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȠȪȢ ȖİȞİIJȚțȠȪȢ țĮȓ IJİȤȞȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪȢ ȞİȦIJİȡȚıȝȠȪȢ»,੖ʌ. ʌ., ıİȜ. 64. 118

Implications and Application

285

Linzey gives examples of human vivisection in the painful experiments on orphan children in 1903120 and I am personally aware of the numerous horrific details of experiments on humans in the Nazi concentration camps of the Second World War. The Imperial War Museum in London holds details of various experiments on Jewish children including a Nazi selection process where conveyor belts designed to separate the ‘Arian’ babies from those who did not fit that criterion. The conveyor belt for the non-Arian babies went to a gas chamber. I remember this when I see conveyor belts full of thousands of day-old male chicks who are conveyed in like manner to their deaths either by gassing or by being tipped into scalding water. Their deaths are determined because they are male and are of no economic value to the farmer. 121 By our acceptance of using animal testing we have created the very situation where scientists test on human embryos and argue that this or that area of the human body can be repaired by using stem cells from aborted foetuses. Linzey speaks to the point: A world in which cruelty to animals goes unchecked, is bound to be a morally unsafe world for human beings.122

Limouris adds yet another dimension to this discussion and indicates the implications for humans and non-human animals of biotechnology and genetic engineering: While genetic engineering and advances in biotechnology may be considered a blessing in therapeutic practices in medicine, they are also potential manifestations of injustice because of the threat posed in the field of mutation. 123

When discussing the advantages of technology to the human body Breck also raises a warning: Recent experiments with rats and monkeys have proved that brains and electronics can interact in such a way that an animal’s activity can be precisely directed by electrodes implanted in the pleasure centres of the brain…this new technology also poses a potential threat to personal

 120

This along with other examples are found in Lederer, Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War, 92-98. 121 See Linzey and Linzey for details of other Nazi experimentation. 122 Linzey, “Cruelty to Animals is as if a Man did not Love God.” In The Ark, no 220, (Spring 2012):5-10. 123 Limouris, Justice, Peace, 17, 7-8, 18, 19, 23.

286

Chapter Nine autonomy. If electronics allow us to control, they could also allow us to be controlled, and the question is, by whom and to what end?124

Although he mentions the use of animals, he does not comment on the animal suffering in this process. 125 Griniezakis acknowledges that our acceptance of using animal beings for experimentation has led to the following abominations: According to Lifenews.com, scientists at the University of Wisconsin have successfully transplanted human embryonic cells into the brain of a mouse. The transplanted cells developed and helped increase the mouse’s intelligence; following the transplant, the mouse was able to discern sounds, an impossible task prior to the transplant. Japanese scientists have been using pigs for the cultivation of human organs, while in 2011 The Daily Mail reported that British scientists had created more than 150 hybrid embryos of animal and human origin. Hybrid embryos were produced as early as 2008, with the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 126 For instance, the research team of Newcastle Tyne University has introduced human skin cells into cattle ova with the intent of using the resulting embryos for therapeutic purposes; however, the embryos only survived for three days.127

We must acknowledge that if these are the experiments being reported, there are likely to be other experiments that are not. This ought to concern us. Griniezakis brings us back to the question of ‘mere animals’ as ‘resources’ for our use: Yet one more issue that should greatly trouble us is man’s relationship to the natural environment. Orthodoxy maintains that people must be good stewards of the God’s creation. This can only be realized when we finally understand that nature is not our personal property and we accept that we do not have the right to abuse it as we seek to fulfill our personal aspirations. Unfortunately, there is a prevailing theory of man as dominator, that is, as the owner and proprietor of the world.

His comments bring us back to the core of the argument and I might add, to the core of Eastern Orthodox teachings on environmental abuse and sin. It is this very same “prevailing theory of man” that allows the

 124

Breck and Breck, Stages on Life's Way, 34. See Sir David Attenborough and scientists who call for an end to such experiments. 126 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/ 22/contents. 127 Griniezakis, Intro to Bioethics, Section 5. 125

Implications and Application

287

flawed animal testing model to continue despite the numerous problems I have outlined above. This section began by noting H. A. H. Bartholomew’s caveat on scientific research: “so long as it provides benefit to humanity and the environment.” I provide enough evidence to prove that there is certainly no benefit to the animals involved. On this criterion, the animal testing model fails. I believe I have produced enough evidence of failure rates and harm to humans to question the blanket acceptance of the efficacy and safety of the products. On this criterion, the animal testing model fails. I believe I have also provided enough evidence to question whether we should continue to accept animal testing as an effective model when so many millions of animals die in immense suffering to produce so little. I also ask if animal testing should continue when alternatives are available. I have noted Bishop Isaias’s teaching that if alternatives are available they must be used and suggest that this would be a good and immediate starting point for discussions on this important aspect of animal suffering. I appreciate that the leaders of our Church will have a challenging task in defining a position on this subject. Breck acknowledges this: …any good Christian ethicist needs to be courageous, because this struggle for balance, a struggle which involves situations that are very close to our hearts is often going to result in an unpopular stance. A good ethicist is likely to get attacked from all sides: for not being absolute enough, for not being understanding or permissive enough. What he or she needs is not our attacks but our prayers and the sharing of our experience and understanding, for ethics is also an ecclesial undertaking. As ecclesial or communal as ethics may be, we still need people with the courage, the theological sense, and the scientific acumen to make the necessary connections for us, and even to show us how we might make some of the connections ourselves, so that our own decisions, our own lives, may truly reflect our faith.128

Breck states that engagement requires not only theological and scientific knowledge but also courage and a “thick skin” as there is the distinct possibility of criticism from all quarters. He also informs us that if we engage in new and difficult areas, we are likely to receive even more and I have previously commented on how this relates to St. Isaac’s comment of receiving abuse from one’s contemporaries. Whilst I have advanced the opinion that the subjects of animal suffering and protection are not new, the fact that my work encompasses many areas that are perceived of as being ‘difficult’ and, that I ask so many challenging

 128

Breck and Breck, Stages on Life's Way, 14-5.

288

Chapter Nine

questions, indicates that I should not only be seeking prayers but also armour-plating! Yet the arguments used throughout this work are grounded in biblical and traditional Eastern Orthodox teachings. There is a further element that runs throughout this work – that of salvation. As Christians, we have a duty to care for, protect and prevent the suffering of God’s creatures. If we have a duty of care, what are the implications for our salvation if we fail to act in some way to alleviate their suffering? This passage from the 1st September ecclesial text states the following: Anyone who knows what it is right to do and fails to do it, for them it is sin.129

The obvious question here is what is the right position to take on this difficult topic? We can use the corpus of scientific evidence and opinions of leading scientists who recognise that alternatives to this model are available. We can also use patristic texts, which offer guidance. I have already used these quotes by St. Basil and St. Augustine but in light of the above, they are worth repeating here: Do you know what good you ought to do to your neighbour? The good that you expect from him yourself. Do you know what is evil? That which you would not wish another to do to you. 130 For thou judgest that there is evil in that, which to suffer though art not willing: and this thing then art contrived to know by an inward law, that in thy very heart is written in us. 131

If we step back from the discussion and allow ourselves to concentrate for a moment on what actually happens to these animals, the horror of the reality is likely to force us to pull away from further engagement. Why? I believe it is because we know that the process of inflicting great suffering upon the non-human animal creation is against the teachings of Christ and His Church. St. Basil and St. Augustine’s teachings are important not only for us as individuals but also for the leaders of our Church. Would any of us be willing to undergo such treatment? If not, why? Is it our intrinsic understanding of the evil inherent in such processes? If the little knowledge we have upsets us so much, what of the reality for the innocent creatures who suffer the physical and psychological agonies involved in

 129

Mikrayiannanites “Vespers for the Environment, III. At the Liturgy.” In Chryssavgis & Foltz, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration, 395. 130 St Basil, Hexaemeron, 9.3. 131 Deane, The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine, 85-88.

Implications and Application

289

the animal testing model? Are we as theologians and ethicists fearful of the abuse we might incur when involving ourselves in this difficult and contentious subject? Is it that we have little time to discuss animal suffering because our focus is on human suffering? Surely, this latter argument cannot stand if we are to be a voice for the voiceless and ‘Priest of Creation.’ H. A. H. Bartholomew has stated that God watches and will judge each one of us and that those who perpetrate harmful acts, those who are indifferent to those acts, together with those who harm creation “even out of negligence” “constitutes not simply an evil, but a grave sin.” This would indicate that it is not only the perpetrators of acts of harm that need worry about their salvation; there are also serious implications for those who know but remain silent, indifferent, apathetic or reluctant to engage with this or other challenging animal suffering issues. This brings forth a further challenging question. Does this mean that there are soteriological consequences for those who use products tested on animals when others are available? Chryssavgis teaches that concern for creation requires us to: ...remember the whole truth about our creation and about the environment. Anything less than the full story, any deviation from the fullness of that truth, is a dangerous heresy. 132

In light of the evidence outlined above, I submit that accepting the animal testing model without challenge is an example of not presenting the “whole story” “the fullness of truth” and presumably therefore is in danger of being a “dangerous heresy.” This again brings us to the question on what we as individuals and as leaders of our Church can do in relation to this aspect of animal suffering. How can we apply the proclamations in the ecclesial texts for the 1st September, which asks for creation’s protection; deliverance from perils; to be undamaged by harmful corrupters; from every evil and cunning; free from contamination; strife and destruction? There are ways forward and proffer some suggestions here: 1) Through prayer: Consequently, it is our obligation as shepherds of the Church and every person of the spirit and the sciences but also of all devout Christians, to do good and especially to pray that the divine Creator of all may enlighten the scientists, who are particularly involved with these issues, that they may enter the mysteries of nature with humility before God and respect toward the natural laws so as to avoid the unnatural use of

 132

Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 20.

290

Chapter Nine their research for commercial or other reasons. A long experience is necessary in order to determine that the ascertained beneficial repercussions of the application of new knowledge do not have parallel side effects that are destructive to the environment as well as to humanity.133

For clarity, I would add animals within that environment to this list. 2) There is a need for clarity on this subject as in many other subjects in bioethics. The involvement of the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church will enable us to develop a position on the suffering of these animals that is based upon the Image and Likeness of an all-loving and compassionate God. 3) There are precedents for us as individuals and as leaders of our Church to step into the secular world in order prevent abuse and suffering to God’s creatures. We are already aware of H. A. H. Bartholomew’s efforts to effect change not only in the hearts of man but also in the minds of governments and industries in his Religion and Science Symposia, his attendance at Davos and his recent joint venture with Pope Francis when advocating a greater push towards ‘green’ energies. We also have the Russian Patriarch Kyril presenting a strong argument to the Russian state authority on another issue of great importance, the killing of innocents through abortion: In January 17, 2011 Patriarch Kyril submitted the list of the Church requirements to the State council i.e. (an advisory body to the Russian head of state dealing with the issue of the highest importance to Russia). It was an absolutely new initiative of the Russian Orthodox Church to present its official attitude and the concrete claims to the state authority regarding restriction of abortion. 134

4) Through Church proclamations, such as that by Bishop Isaias, who teaches that where alternatives to animal testing are available, drug companies, scientists and researchers, ought to use them. 5) We could also ask for greater effort in finding alternatives to animal testing. This worked in the past with the major pharmaceutical companies who used to test cosmetics on animals

 133

Bartholomew, “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation,” 2013. 134 Tomaševiü, “Bioethics from the point of view of the Orthodox (Russian) Church,” 13.

Implications and Application

291

and provided the necessary impetus for some to develop alternative models. These alternative models have increased over time, yet not to the level expected or possible since first advocated some fifty years ago. The potential impact of this teaching for animal suffering if promoted by the leaders of our Church is clear. 6) If we declared our intention not to use substances tested on animals in our Churches and on Church land, we would again send a clear message to the manufacturers that it is time to provide alternative models and practices. These products range from cosmetics through to cleaning products. 7) We as individuals and as a Church do not invest in companies that test their products on animals. By acting in a variety of ways, the leaders of our Church would play their part in reducing the suffering inflicted upon God’s non-human animal beings whilst encouraging alternatives to animal experimentation. The majority of these suggestions can be implemented immediately whilst our theologians determine a position on this important theme. Finally, it is important not to condemn all technology. It is not technology or new inventions, which cause harm to creation but rather, our continuing misuse of them.135 To be clear, I do not state that everyone involved in the animal testing system is evil, even though some exhibit this tendency. Nor do I say that all animal testing is void of positive outcome. What I do say is that the inherent problems within the animal testing model are so overwhelming that from the scientific perspective it ought to be rejected. I also firmly believe that any system that legalizes violence to animals is not compatible with the tenets of Christianity or our role as Image of an all-loving and merciful God. This aligns with the established Eastern Orthodox teachings that: ‘The fields of bioethics, technology, medicine and science must be developed in such a manner that they will “keep our relationship with the other pole of our existence, with our Creator and our archetype.”136

The Eastern Orthodox Church, from the earliest periods until today, teaches that we are to be non-violent creatures, whose role is to care and protect “all things” in God’s creation. In more recent times, we have been

 135

Weaponizing atomic energy was not the original plan. Paulus Mar Gregorius, Cosmic Man: The Divine Presence, 225. In Vachicouras, The Orthodox Church and problems of Bioethics and Ecology. 136

292

Chapter Nine

taught to include ‘nature’ and animals within our communities and to extend them love, compassionate care and mercy. I advance the opinion that the animal testing model, like the industrial process of contemporary farming discussed earlier, is not compatible with these teachings. Therefore, it ought to be rejected. After a comprehensive discussion on the first reason for the anomaly of accepting the animal testing model – the “predetermined conclusion” that the animal testing model is “not harmful to humanity” I now turn to the second reason-certain historical theological and philosophical teachings have determined that the non-human creation has no future life with God.

Historical Separation: Irrationality as Disposable Life. This topic is an important element of the animal suffering discussion and a natural extension of the Eastern Orthodox debate on our misuse of the environment. I recognise that this section will be a challenge for many clergy. I have witnessed over many years that the mere mention of the subject of animal welfare evokes in some an instant hostile response. This, in and of itself, ought to concern us. That this is the case in the 21st century, gives an indication of how difficult it would have been to broach the subject in other periods of Church history. The problem is thus; if we are to address the subject of animal suffering, we must examine every aspect of it in order to prevent it. This requires us to examine the reasons for the separation of animal beings from human beings. I have previously noted some reasons and to examine every aspect in depth would require a separate monograph. It is therefore necessary to select the areas of particular importance for the subject of animal suffering, the greatest of which is the denial of an eternal life with God. A brief historical recap is necessary in order to establish the cultural context of such teachings. All ancient societies have ‘creation myths’ and for our purposes the ancient Greek culture is the most relevant. Written evidence of the separation of animals from humans in found as early as the Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus. 137 This tale describes how humans and animals live in a pre-verbal state before humans acquire language and the “stage before they enslave and exploit animals. Language is the final differentiation between men and beasts.” This is important for it is this supposed lack of language, which enables Aristotle and others to deny animals the ability to

 137

Harden, 18.

Implications and Application

293

think and reason-“I think, therefore I am”. Essentially, the belief was/is that if one does not possess language one cannot think and thus cannot reason. In light of today’s scientific research, Aristotle’s assumptions that animals do not possess language and do not think are no longer viable. In addition, Newmyer informs us that Aristotle’s teachings on nature were inconsistent with his views as a political and ethical philosopher: [Aristotle] fluctuated in his estimation of the intellectual capabilities of animals, attributing to them more highly developed mental faculties in his narrowly zoological treaties while stressing the intellectual inferiority to humans in his more anthropocentric works.138

Harden explains why this is important. He informs us that there was a “hazardous looseness” in the writing of Aristotle “that was exploited by subsequent writers” who “could simply choose which of Aristotle’s conclusions to follow.” To complicate matters further, Sorabji advises us that the concept of reason “was itself repeatedly transformed, a fact which complicates any assertion on animals’ capacity for reason.”139 Ironically, it is the paucity of the English language in comparison to that of the original ancient Greek, which contributes to the confusion on the meaning of aspects of this discussion such as logos/ logismos-word, speech, reason and rationality. How is this historical backdrop relevant to our theology and the subject of animal suffering? I have already noted Met. John’s explanation of the original understanding of rationality but it is important enough to repeat here: Rationality was not, as it came to be understood later, simply a capacity to reason with one’s mind. Instead, as the ancient Greeks thought of logos, it is man’s capacity to achieve the unity of the world and to make a cosmos out of it. Man has the capacity to unite the world.140

I have also noted that whilst this is undoubtedly true, the Fathers also used both definitions of the word. St. Athanasius affirms this recognition: Nothing in creation had gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only. 141

 138

Newmyer (2011) quoted in Harden, 8-9. Sorabji Animal Minds, quoted in Harden, 7. 140 Met. John, “Proprietor or Priest of Creation?” 141 Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 43:3, CANNPNF 2-04. 139

294

Chapter Nine You may see flocks of vultures following armies and calculating the result of warlike preparations; a calculation very nearly approaching to human reasoning.142

Thus, both uses of the word are evident. Met. John explains how a separationist and damaging theology developed: In the West similar developments tended to introduce a dichotomy between Man and Nature by regarding the former as superior to the latter and as the center of everything. Typical examples of this development are to be found in Augustine and Boethius, who defined the human being in terms of reason and intellect and introduced consciousness and introspectiveness as the supreme aspects of human, and indeed divine, existence. Thus, the human nature was singled out from nature as being not only a higher kind of being, but in fact the sole being that mattered eternally, apart of course from the angels, who owing to their spiritual and immaterial existence, were of an even higher value than human souls. The kingdom of God in Saint Augustine’s vision of the last things has no place for nature; it consists of the survival of spiritual beings, the eternal souls.143

Met. John’s analysis is shared by non-Orthodox authorities in the field such as Linzey and Clough. St. Aquinas (harking back to St. Augustine and Aristotle) exemplifies how the irrationality of animals continued in Western theological teachings that endorse the belief that animals were solely for human use: [animals] set themselves in motion...by a kind of natural impulse, a sign of which is that they are naturally enslaved and accommodated to the uses of others.144

However, it would be too easy to lay all of the blame for this theology at the Western door. I condense relevant research from an expert in the field of Orthodoxy and science: Basil and the Fathers after him who shaped the new philosophical and religious paradigm advanced, though not without regressions and

 142

Basil, Hexaemeron, 8:7. Met. John, “Preserving God’s Creation,” 1.2.2. 144 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “Whether it is Unlawful to Kill Any Living Thing” Second Part of the Second Part, (QQ. 1-189) Q. 64:1, Reply to Objection 2. It will be interesting to see how the Catholic Church reacts to Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si which challenges this traditional view and also acknowledges that Christians “have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures,” LS: 67, 68, 117. 143

Implications and Application

295

ambivalences, to a critical “harmonization” of Hellenism with Christianity, a reconciliation already begun by early Christian thinkers and apologists, mainly from the second half of the second century. Their contribution marked the turning point in the quest for a possible symmetry between Hellenism and Christianity and achieved by a selective use of the Greek philosophical tradition and sciences (mainly Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics). Their hermeneutical elaborations established new doctrinal concepts linking contemporary scientific knowledge of the universe with the Christian worldview and the Economy of Salvation. In formulating the core of Eastern Christianity’s dogma, the Greek Church Fathers became a medium and a model for the knowledge of ancient philosophical texts and the Byzantines’ scientific views concerning the natural world.145

Thus, a partial fusion of Hellenism, Science, Christianity and the Economy of Salvation is evident. However, we also learn that there were differences in opinion and approaches on nature. The attitude of Byzantine theologians and thinkers toward Hellenism was by no means consistent and linear…Basil and Gregory, despite their different approaches to the uniqueness of the truth concerning nature, both drew on the Greek philosophical worldview to explain Genesis. During the same period, John Chrysostom, who explained Genesis in a literal fashion, believed in a flat earth surrounded by a sky in the form of a dome and claimed that the investigation of nature must not go too far. Byzantine theologians declared Basil, Gregory and John, Fathers of the Church. Their texts not only became the basis for Orthodox dogma but also served as the common foundation for the Eastern and the Western Christian traditions. Byzantine Christianity managed to live with its contradictions; at various times and in the context of various theological debates, it leaned toward one or another perception of nature.146

Not only are there differences in opinion there is also evidence that some of the science accepted and incorporated into the Fathers’ teachings was flawed. Nicolaides also provides evidence of the influence of Aristotelian teachings: They also followed their classification of the sciences according to a hierarchy of values and adopted their division of the Aristotelian writings, accepting them as preliminary to platonic philosophy and incorporating the introductory role of the mathematical sciences into theology.147

 145

Nicolaides, Science and Orthodox Christianity. Nicolaides, Science and Orthodox Christianity. 147 Nicolaides, Science and Orthodox Christianity. 146

296

Chapter Nine

He also provides us with evidence of the longevity of such teachings: Unlike in the West, Greek philosophy was taught in Byzantium almost continuously…The curriculum of studies, rather unstable until the eleventh century, started with Aristotle’s logic and ethics, advanced to physics and the quadrivium and culminated in (Neo)platonic metaphysics.148

One cannot overestimate the importance of this philosophical education for this discussion. I condense research on the Fathers’ education by Eleftheriou: Justin the Philosopher was “the first philosopher who attempted to reconcile Christian philosophy with ancient Greek philosophy, especially Stoicism”; Dionysios Areopagites, a pagan Greek jurist, became first Bishop of Athens and wrote on “the philosophy of theology, and the state of the soul.” Bishop Anatolios of Laodakeia (the Alexandrine) “was a great Aristotelian philosopher”; Bishop Gregory of NeoCaesarea studied in philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria; Clement of Rome “had a great knowledge of Greek philosophy.” St. Gregory the Theologian studied under the Greek philosopher Livanios; St. Basil the Great and his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa “known for his depth of knowledge of Greek philosophy…leaned in some of his writings to the philosophy of Origen.” St. John Chrysostom studied at the various schools of higher learning at Athens, where he studied under the leading philosophers of the time, Andragathios and Livanius; Bishop Synesios of Ptolemais of Cyrenaica, was “one of the Neoplatonist philosopher Fathers of the Church”, educated in the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria and friend and follower of the philosopher Hypatia. Bishop Alexander of Lycopolis was originally a pagan Greek neo-Platonic philosopher. St Maximus the Confessor attended the Pandedacterion and Library of Constantinople, majoring in philosophy and theology; St, John of Damascus was educated in philosophy and theology by Cosmas. Patriarch Photios of Constantinople was educated at the University and Library Schools of Constantinople was a distinguished and prolific “writer in philosophy and theology.” St. Cyril “philosopher and scholar” was also professor at the Pandedacterion University in Constantinople. 149

With this cultural and educational backdrop, there was no reason for the Fathers to question animal irrationality, the validity of the Aristotle’s science or the tripartite framework of souls.150 The irrationality of animals

 148

Nicolaides, Science and Orthodox Christianity. Eleftheriou, Encyclopedia of the Major Saints and Fathers of the Orthodox Church; see also Edwards, “On the Platonic Schooling of Justin Martyr,” 17-34. 150 In Hexaemeron, Homilies 7:5 and 8:1, St. Basil repeats Aristotelian teaching that some creatures “spontaneously generate” and his teaching on the Halcyon bird 149

Implications and Application

297

along with the acceptance of a flat earth was the accepted knowledge and wisdom of that time. This influence ran from the early period and continued through the monastic system and theological teachings via influential theologians such as Origen: Origen received the best education possible and as successor to Cyril as director of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, expanded the curriculum from philosophy, philology and theology. He was reproached for blending Christian doctrines with Platonism. Origin’s double achievement was to “destroy Gnosticism and to give philosophy a recognised place in the creeds of the Church.” 151

Met. John acknowledges how this backdrop influenced Eastern thought on the material world: The strong influence of platonic gnostic dualism in the second and third centuries had the result of undermining the importance of the material world and regarding it as at best irrelevant, and at worst as evil. The Christian Gnostics of Alexandria, above all the extremely influential Origen, represent classical examples of this development. Origen in particular, who was widely read by the monks of Egypt, influenced a considerable part of Eastern monasticism which was fortunately rescued from this influence by monastic forces such as that of St Macarius and St Maximus the Confessor.152

Unfortunately, for the animal creation, the tripartite categorization of souls and the terminology used in discussions on the theme was/is not rescued and remains until today. Despite opposing views on animal intelligence and rationality153 Aristotelian teachings on the irrationality of



is almost a direct lift from Aristotle’s History of Animals. Prof. Leroi discusses Aristotle’s flawed scientific methodology in Aristotle’s Lagoon and McManus informs us of Aristotle’s poor anatomical knowledge in Scrotal Asymmetry in Man and in Ancient Sculpture. McManus won the Nobel prise for Medicine in 2002. 151 Eleftheriou, 102-3. 152 Met. John, “Preserving God’s Creation,” 12, 1: II: I. 153 Archelaus, Sextus Empiricus and Tiberius Julius Alexander (nephew of Philo the Jew) believed that animals/dogs had cognitive capacities and reason. Plutarch believed animals showed evidence of reasoning and were thus entitled to justice. Porphyry acknowledged animal rationality and sentience. Sextus Empiricus believed animals understood their own suffering. Empedocles believed killing animals was unjust and offered an early example of evolution and Theophrastus extended justice to animals because humans are animals. Archelaus is quoted in Hippolytus, Refutations of all Heresies, 1.3.2-3; Empedocles, Fragment 75; Aelian, On Animals 16. 299f in Harden (2013:17, 22, 35); Sorabji, 174-5; Terian (1981)

298

Chapter Nine

animals and its influence on philosophy and Christian theology developed into a mind-set that denied justice or mercy to animals.154 This in turn led to the belief that non-human animals could not feel pain and Descartes is the classic example of this view.155 He taught that the screams from the animals involved in his experiments were not an indication of pain but rather, like air escaping from machines.156 Thus, confusion on terminology and influential teachings on humans as the only creatures to possess reason, intellect, consciousness and introspectiveness, reinforced the separation of non-human animal beings from human beings and ultimately, from God. This remains the teaching of the contemporary Christian Church. Linzey outlines the damaging effects of these philosophical and theological teaching for animals: The distinction between ‘rational’ and ‘non-rational’ has led to entrenched dualisms in Christian thought that separates humans from the rest of creation. The view emerged that animals are ‘just animals’. For example, while humans have ‘spirit’, animals have only ‘flesh’; humans have ‘minds’ whereas animals are just ‘matter’; humans are ‘persons’ and animals are mere ‘things; humans have rational immortal souls, while



and Newmyer 2011:13-4, 30, 45, 56-7, 61-2, 85-6. Plutarch, Essays and Miscellanies: The Complete Works of Plutarch, (2004). Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food, Bk 111:8, 19. Pythagoras in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Bk 15 and Preece, Sins of the Flesh: A History of Ethical Vegetarian Thought, esp. Ch. 3 (2008). Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhonic Sketches, Outline of Pyrrhonism, 1.62-78. Theophrastus On the Senses, 25-6; also Sorabji (1993). For modern studies, see Aaltola, Animal Suffering: Philosophy and Culture (2012). Canone, “The Classical Greek Tradition” in A Compassion to Environmental Philosophy, (2001:71). Cochrane, An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, (2010). Graham, The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy (2010). Harden, Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspectives from Greek and Roman Texts (2013). Newmyer, Animals in Greek and Roman Thought, (2012). Sorabji, Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate (1993). Steiner, Anthropocentrism and its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy, especially Ch. 5 & 6 (2005). 154 Augustine, influenced by Aristotle and Plato, denied justice to animals because they lacked rational souls; Aquinas agreed likewise. See Aristotle, The Politics, 1:1253 a7; The Nicomachean Ethics 8:1161 a-b; Plato, The Republic, 2:372 a-d; Augustine, The City of God Against the Pagans, 1:20; Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2:25,3; Summa Contra Gentiles, 3:113. 155 Passmore, “The Treatment of Animals,” 197-202. 156 There are remnants of this teaching existing today in the C. C. S and from those who have taught that the screams from lobsters placed into boiling water are not evidence of pain but of air being released. Crustaceans like the lobster suffer pain and possess intelligence. See www.crustaceancompassion.org.uk.

Implications and Application

299

animals have non-rational souls. These distinctions in favour of humans are reinforced by the historical language we use about animals: ‘brutes’, ‘beasts’, ‘irrational’, and ‘dumb’. Dualistic distinctions have always tended to disadvantage animals and elevate humans...From the denial of mental life and rational soulfulness to animals, it was only a short step to the idea that animals had insufficient consciousness to feel pain.157

Had there been little or no suffering resulting from such teachings, I doubt that many would take issue with the classification; yet this is not the case. This differentiation and terminology have led to immeasurable suffering of God’s non-human animal creation. Mantzarides’ comments on how anthropocentrism has led to “separation and alienation” from nature is equally apposite for animals within our environments. Today we have a huge corpus of scientific evidence that has established that despite St. John Chrysostom’s belief, the earth is not flat and we as individuals and as a Church accept that evidence without argument. We also have a huge corpus of scientific evidence that has established that many species of animal have language; intelligence; rationality; cognition; creativity; the ability to love and form life-long relationships and families; the ability to organise their societies in ways that demonstrate both social respect and moral boundaries and are conscious of both physical and psychological pain and suffering. In Chapters Six and Seven we found evidence of clergy accepting this evidence, yet I am not entirely convinced that all of our clergy accept this evidence without argument. An important question to ask is why this is the case? Theokritoff speaks to the point when stating that discussions on the distinctions between human and animals “tend to be vehement”, “somewhat circular” and “frequently show little interest in what is actually known about animal behaviour.” 158 The question to ask here is why animal related themes create such tension and hostility. Why do some reject the overwhelming science on animal capacities for higher-level reasoning/thinking as evidenced in their use of tools, problem solving, creativity, etc? Chapter Two provided some historical reasons and perhaps some of these factors are still in play today. I suspect the root lies in the fact that the evidence available today impacts upon teachings on the differences between human and animal souls and in particular, the denial of an eternal life with God.

 157

Linzey and Linzey, The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments, esp. section 5:22 & 24; also, 5:13-15, 23-27. 158 Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation, 240.

300

Chapter Nine

The leaders of our Church and its academics reject the misinterpretation of dominion and acknowledge the negative impact of this interpretation in our environmental crisis. Theological teachings on the irrationality of animals and the denial of an eternal life with God have led to a similarly negative situation for animals. At present there appears to be an unwillingness to engage with the latter. If we are to address the subject of animal suffering, to be a voice for the voiceless and extend our love, compassion and mercy to the rest of creation, then we ought not to ignore this particular issue and the science that surrounds it. Some might argue that we do not need to be aware of the contemporary scientific evidence for Met. John has explained that rationality in Eastern Orthodox understanding meant something quite different. I submit that this is not necessarily the case. Despite the scientific evidence, a leading contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologian and ethicist repeats the historical view: Human beings are created as a composite of body and spirit, as well as in the "image and likeness" of the Holy Trinity. "Image" refers to those characteristics that distinguish humanity from the rest of the created world: intelligence, creativity, the ability to love, self-determination, and moral perceptivity. 159

We can speculate on how representative this view is but the important point to make here is that in light of the scientific evidence available today, many species of animals fit the criteria used. This ought to concern us and lead us to question whether it is still viable to differentiate between human and non-human beings in this way; particularly in light of the animal suffering caused by such teachings. Met. Kallistos speaks to the point: It is said that animals do not possess reason, more specifically, that they do not have immortal souls. The result of this approach has been that we are in danger of treating animals as objects and not subjects...To say animals don’t have reason is also questionable. Again, there is much research in this field…So it seems to me that you cannot make a sharp distinction here either. 160

These “objects” are the disposable lives found in laboratories throughout the world.

 159

I omit the reference here out of compassion for the ethicist who I am about to criticise. The academic community will no doubt recognise the commentator but the wider audience do not need this information to grasp the point. 160 Chapter Six.

Implications and Application

301

I have previously provided some of the patristic, ecclesial and biblical evidence, which indicates that all creatures know, praise and worship God and that He in turn knows and loves all things. There is also evidence of some form of reciprocal spiritual relationship and knowledge of God, where the ‘mind’ of the animal meets with the ‘mind’ of God. Early patristic texts also teach us that all creatures are recapitulated in Christ and that “the whole world was ransomed” sanctified and redeemed by Christ through His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. There is also Scriptural evidence of animals in the age to come. There are also teachings that because of this intimate, spiritual and ontological connection, all creatures are in some way Holy and sacred. Despite these teachings, statements like the following continue and do so, I submit, because of the continuing influence of the flawed science, philosophy and theology of the past. In “Why Pets Do Not Go To Heaven”, our unnamed ethicist gives the following reasons: In the creation story in Genesis, a very important distinction is made between animals and human beings. Human beings were created not only out of the same material that the animal world was created, but also with the “breath of God,” “in the image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1-2). What precisely is the difference? We could say that animals do have a soul, in the sense of a life force and the basics of perception, response, the ability to learn, instinct, and so forth. What they don’t have is the “image of God” in them. St. John of Damascus (675-749), summarizing the faith of the Church, refers to the distinctive aspect of human nature as “reason,” saying “the human being is a rational and intelligent animal.” Another word he uses to indicate this difference is “mind.” This creates a meeting place between human beings and God; a meeting place that animals do not have. So, when St. John of Damascus speaks about Jesus’ Incarnation (the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, taking on human nature), he contrasts the human mind as the image of God, with “the soul of an irrational animal.” 161

Firstly, this explanation ignores the biblical, ecclesial and patristic texts outlined earlier and a great deal besides, of animals recognizing, worshipping, praising and crying out to God. Secondly, confusion over terminology remains. Again, many species of non-human animals fit this description of Image. This should also concern us and again lead us to question the validity of using such criteria. Met. Kallistos speaks to the point on animals in heaven:

 161

My emphasis.

302

Chapter Nine Now the normal view is that the animal soul is formed from the earth and therefore it is dissolved at death and doesn’t survive, yet the accounts in the Bible of the age to come make it quite clear that there will be animals there. The ox and the ass-the lion and the lamb will go together. The usual view is to say that they won’t be the same animals, but how do we know? Do we have any right to say that animals do not possess immortality? I think this is a subject where we can simply say, we do not have a clear revelation on this point in Scripture. I cannot recall anywhere where it says animals cannot survive into a future life, so why shouldn’t we leave that to God’s mercy and say that we don’t understand about this? So perhaps the animals do survive. So, in all of this, simply to say that animals have no souls is-inadequate. It is a matter of opinion as opposed to any dogmatic statement from the Orthodox Church. It is a subject in which we have not been given clear revelation or guidance in revelation.

These are important teachings for this aspect of animal suffering. What is clear is that there is no dogma on this subject, which opens theological space for discussions on teachings, which have denied an eternal life with God to billions of God’s creatures. In light of the errors in our teachings relating to the differences between human and animal capacities, is it possible that the categorization of irrational and non-eternal souls for non-human animals, might be another example of historical error? Today, we have a clearer picture of animal capacities and the luxury of hindsight, which helps us see the animal suffering that has arisen from a combination of flawed science, the tripartite system of souls and confusion over terminology. I submit that as our scientific knowledge increases, it is clear that the criteria and language used in the past is no longer viable and that discussions on the theme are long overdue. It is important to state here that I do not suggest that animals and humans are the same. The point is that we ought not to base our difference on lists like those above. We once drew a line in the sand and as our knowledge increases, we continually have to redraw it. As previously stated, had there been no harmful consequences attached to the categorization of ‘irrational souls’ then I doubt that many would be troubled by it; unfortunately, as Linzey and Metropolitans Kallistos and John note, this is not the reality. Animals are resources, objects or units of production, rather than individual sentient creatures who are loved by God and suffer as we do. The result of this differentiation is the creation of disposable life, which is contrary to patristic teachings such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, “nothing in creation may be thrown away as worthless, as says

Implications and Application

303

the Apostle, or be left without its portion of the Divine fellowship.” 162 By ignoring such teachings, humans have categorized the non-human creation as ‘worthless-life’, which is equally “monstrous and unseemly” 163and this too ought to alarm us. I believe it is entirely possible that if the Fathers had possession of the scientific evidence available today, they would make a different distinction between the human and non-human creation. Perhaps they would focus on the unique aspect of Image-the power to create and edit different life forms and the power to destroy all life. No other creature is gifted this ability. We have no need to separate the rest of creation from God or to denigrate it in other ways. I have repeated throughout this work that our difference ought to be based upon our Image of an all-loving and compassionate God and that our role as His representative, is to care, nurture and cherish all things in His creation. We do not need to differentiate via souls or reject the salvation of the rest of the created world in order to secure our own. In fact, in light of the evidence presented throughout this work, it is entirely possible that in denying this possibility to non-human beings, we shall lose our own. Three challenging questions arise: 1) Are we right to ignore contemporary science in order to uphold the flawed science and social norms of the past? 2) Would we be right to cling to a traditional teaching if the consequences of that teaching results in the immense suffering and annual destruction of billions of non-human animals? 3) If our ethicist uses his criteria for his support of the animal testing model, is he right to do so? The next point is similar to the question of why God imposed fear into the human-animal relationship after Noah slaughtered some of the animals he was to save. On that occasion, I noted that it would be easier to kill animals for sacrifice and food if they were not running away in fear. In light of the contemporary scientific evidence on animal capabilities, the question that now arises is what the purpose of these capabilities is if animals were simply a resource or disposable lives for food, or fodder for experimental investigation? The point here is: if that were the case then surely a loving and compassionate God would ensure that animals did not

 162 163

Great Catechism VI. Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word.

Chapter Nine

304

have these capacities. Gifting them the physical capacities, which allow them to suffer physical pain and the mental capacities to understand that they are suffering is surely evidence of cruelty, rather than of a compassionate, loving and merciful God. That many species of animals possess these qualities is without doubt and so we must ask why a loving and compassionate God gave them these capacities. Several questions arise. Is it credible to suggest they develop solely from the evolutionary process? Is there a credible theological answer? Is it possible that God gifts these capacities to His non-human creatures to focus our attention on our interrelatedness rather than our perceived differences? Bishop Isaias has recognised this possibility: Now there are animals that have excellent reason and instincts and have very similar abilities to human beings, like the chimpanzees for example. I have done my own research and I know that there are many studies now that shows how close many species are to us and this is a good thing because it helps us to see how connected we are to the other animals in the kingdom of God. This should help us to understand our connectedness and to treat them well. 164

Throughout history, individuals have tried to prevent animal suffering in a variety of ways. Bishop Isaias gives their actions theological context: We have to be kind to all creatures. Kindness should show no discrimination. We must not discriminate against the animals. We must not have a selfish kindness. I mean here that we should not be kind to animals just because it benefits us, like for our food, or for our companions or that they decorate the world. We need to be kind to animals because it is who we are; we are made in the Image of God and we must reflect the love of God in his kindness to all things and because they belong to God. 165

In essence, once we realise how close we are in our abilities, it ought to become more difficult to abuse them. Perhaps God also uses this closeness to limit the misuse of our freedom and ability to justify our destructive tendencies. In this sense, we might again view God’s act of creating similarities between His creatures as another type of damage limitation exercise. Is it also possible that God uses this closeness to force us to recognise that in destroying them, we destroy ourselves, either physically in the form of environmental disaster or soteriologically through the loss of our salvation?

 164 165

Chapter Seven. Chapter Seven.

Implications and Application

305

I have noted calls for the Eastern Orthodox Church to review and widen its teachings on sin so that it includes sins against the environment. I believe there is a similar argument for a review of teachings on the denial of an eternal life with God to all but the human creature. I do so not because there are no differences between humans and other creatures but because of the immense suffering of the non-human animal creation that has arisen from that teaching. I believe it is time for the contemporary Fathers to revisit and acknowledge not only the flawed science but also the theology of separation that arose from it, just as they have done in their rejection of the separation that arose from the flawed theological interpretation of dominion as domination. The capacities of animals ought to focus attention on our interconnection, not our perceived differences. These capacities and especially their capacity to suffer ought to throw into doubt any teachings that animals were created as disposable life for the laboratories of this world. Is there a way forward from this point or shall we stay in vehement circles or continued lack of engagement? I believe there are options available but recognise they will meet with opposition and some hostility. I outline three possible options and outcomes: 1) The Church can continue to ignore the issue and state that the differences between animals and humans remain as stated and thus the categorization of ‘irrationality’ and non-eternal souls will remain. The outcome of this option is that animals will continue as a form of disposable life and suffer the abuse and exploitation that arise from it. One of the tenets of Eastern Orthodox Christianity is that the Tradition must not contradict Scripture. As Met. Kallistos notes, there is evidence of animals in the age to come and a classic example of this is Isaiah’s prophecy. St. Irenaeus acknowledges that “all things” are recapitulated in Christ and that nothing in creation had gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only. St. Basil of Seleucia taught that Christ saved the world and liberated the earth and recounts all the benefits of salvation including the principle of purification for the world and a “renewing of nature.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught, “the whole world was ransomed” by Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. There is also the potential for a type of Gnostic heresy in teachings that only humans have a consciousness of God; that only humans have a relationship with God and that only human suffering is relevant to God. I believe I have produced

306

Chapter Nine

enough theological evidence to show that option one is no longer a credible option. 2) The Church can state that the differences remain; the categorization

remains the same but that the status of animal souls should have nothing to do with the way animals are treated. This option attempts to address the view that as animals have noneternal souls, it does not matter how they are treated. It fails however to address the issue of animals as disposable lives with no eternal life with God. 3) Church leaders can redefine the difference between humans and animals. They could reject the categorization of animals as ‘irrational’ beings and focus upon God’s gift of Image. Only humans have the power to create new forms of life, the power to protect all life and the power to destroy all life through the misuse of their freedom. If promoted alongside the compassionate teachings throughout this work and elsewhere, this ought to prevent us viewing animals as objects of disposable life. Animals could be allotted a soul which identifies them as Holy, sacred beings who are loved and valued by God and whose suffering is against God’s will. In this way, the contemporary Fathers finally rescue the non-human animal creation from the Hellenic tripartite framework of souls, just as they are rescuing the environment from the flawed interpretation of dominion as domination. Our leaders can reject the ancient categorization for one that better reflects an all-loving and compassionate God and, the Eastern Orthodox Church, which extends love, justice and mercy to all creatures in creation. In this option, we offer a unification of theological and ethical thought, where compassion, coupled with the responsible use of freedom extends to all God’s creatures. In concluding the discussion on the anomaly of our acceptance of the animal testing model, I recognise that discussions of these options are unlikely to occur in the immediate future. There is nonetheless, the possibility of an immediate statement if the leaders of our Church were simply to endorse the teaching that the status of animal souls should not determine how animals are treated. I believe it would be a good first step,

Implications and Application

307

which would have a profound effect upon how we view animals in society and thus how they are to be treated. 166

Chapter Nine Summary I have presented contemporary Eastern Orthodox commentary and scientific studies and reports on aspects of the intensive farming system and the animal testing model in order to facilitate informed Eastern Orthodox engagement and debate. I argue that the majority of animal suffering in the animal food production industries is a direct result of the misuse of human freedom through exploitation or deliberately cruel practices; as a by-product of the indulging of our passions and from ignorance of the abuse, which takes place in the animal industries. I propose that this misuse of animals has soteriological implications for humanity. I have advanced the opinion that the leaders of our Church have a significant role to play in persuading us to change our dietary habits in order to reduce animal suffering, improve human health and restore our polluted air, water and land. I offer suggestions on how we as a Church and as individuals can achieve this change. I hope they receive serious consideration. The discussion on the animal testing model has outlined some parameters for scientific research: x We must use alternatives to animal testing where available. x Scientific research is acceptable to some but important restrictions on human freedom are necessary. x One restriction is that we must at all times mirror the Image of an all-loving and compassionate God. x Research is acceptable “so long as it provides benefit to humanity and the environment.” x We are to reject “the forceful commercial exploitation of resources from contemporary chemical and biological technology in the light of some predetermined conclusion that these are not harmful to humanity.”

 166

This teaching by Fr. S is from the Cyprus Case Study and affirmed by Met. Kallistos and Bishop Isaias in 2014. Bishop Isaias acknowledges that some people in Cyprus mixed a bit of philosophy with a bit of theology and arrived at a teaching, which is not Orthodox. I submit that this is also the case with our historic teachings on this matter.

308

Chapter Nine

x Eastern Orthodox ecclesial texts specifically ask that “all” are to be “free from harm and from every abuse.” x We must be mindful of our ignorance “because it has repeatedly led to tragic consequences for humanity and the environment.” x There is an opinion that animal testing is acceptable “As long as the experiments are necessary to test drugs, surgical procedures, or other medical protocols.” x Animal experiments should be conducted humanely and designed to minimize pain. I have produced evidence that indicates that the animal testing model fails at every level of investigation. I have also noted how the acceptance of animal testing has opened the door to experiments on humans. I have proffered suggestions on how we as individuals and as leaders of our Church can act in order to reduce animal suffering within this flawed system. I hope they receive serious consideration. I have also noted the anomaly between our teachings on reflecting the Image of God and the practice of accepting the animal testing model. I have suggested that historical anthropocentrism and the influence of Hellenic philosophy and flawed science account for this anomaly. I argue that these two factors have led to the development of a separationist theology, which denies the non-human creation a future life with God. Because of these philosophical and theological opinions, we no longer view animals as individual sentient creatures loved by God but as disposable life, resources or units of production. I call for a re-evaluation of our theological teachings on this point and offer three potential options for discussion: 1) The Church could state that the differences between animals and humans remain and thus the categorization of ‘irrationality’ and non-eternal souls will remain. This option fails to address the animal suffering that derives from these teachings and ignores scriptural, patristic and contemporary science, which proves both intelligence and rationality in many species of animals. 2) The Church could state that the status of animal souls is not to be used to determine how animals are treated. This would clarify an aspect of Church teaching but the suffering of animals will remain because it fails to address the problems outlined in 1) above. 3) Church leaders could redefine the difference between human and non-human animals. They could reject the categorization of animals as ‘irrational’ beings and open theological space for

Implications and Application

309

animals sharing a future life with God. It could define a different category of soul, which focuses upon God’s gift of Image. Only humans have the power to edit or create different forms of life and the power to destroy all life. Non-human life is valued for its own sake. This will address the exploitation and abuse of animals who would no longer be viewed as objects of disposable life. For the sake of billions of animals who needlessly suffer each year, I hope the leaders of our Church will give these options serious consideration. I have also asked many challenging questions: How can we in our daily lives, apply the proclamations in the ecclesial texts for the 1st September, which asks for creation’s protection; deliverance from perils; to be undamaged by harmful corrupters; from every evil, cunning and harm; free from contamination, strife and destruction? Who is likely to consider extending justice, rights and compassionate treatment to animals if we continually refer to them as a resource? Is it a sin to continue to use the animal food production system and its products once we become aware of its devastating effects upon animal health and suffering, human health and suffering and environmental damage? As the Image of God, are we right to create disposable life? Are we to apply teachings on the extension of justice, rights, mercy, compassion, non-violence and inclusion into our community, to the animals in the animal food production and animal testing laboratories? If not, why? If it is a sin to force-feed animals in order to produce our food, is it also a sin to force-feed animals harmful products so that we can brush our teeth, paint our homes or clean our toilets? Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? Does the animal testing model comply with the restrictions and caveats outlined above? If not are we to reject the tests and the model? When we ask God for “all” to be free from “harm” and “from every abuse” do we include animals used in animal industries testing model? Is it right to question if these practices are examples of the right use of God’s creatures? If the level of failure found in the animal testing model occurred in any other industry, would we not expect its replacement with procedures that are more reliable?

310

Chapter Nine

If the animal testing model is deeply flawed, is it right to continue with its use? If we have been urged to be a “voice” for the “voiceless” ought we to act in order to reduce animal suffering? Are we right to accept the animal testing model or is this part of a “predetermined conclusion” that it is not “harmful to humanity”? If the failure rates and suspect outcomes in the animal testing model are as reported, are we right to sacrifice millions of God’s creatures, many of whom suffer and die in immense pain, in order to achieve a tiny proportion of usable products? If we accept the continuing use of the animal testing model despite the disturbing evidence and regardless of the animal suffering involved, are we in danger of teaching that only human suffering is relevant to God? If so, are we not guilty of the same type of heresy the Fathers fought so hard to prevent? Is it acceptable to allow animals to suffer the agonies associated with such tests simply to increase a manufacturer’s profits? Is it right to kill innocent animals in medical research to treat disorders that have arisen from human selfish-indulgence? Do the ends justify the means? If we are to speak on behalf of the voiceless are we not right to examine if such experiments and the animal testing model itself is essential to human health and a benefit to humanity and the animals within our environments? Why are the available alternatives to animal testing not in use in every possible situation? Are there soteriological consequences for those who use products tested on animals when they know that alternatives are available? If we have a duty of care for creation, what are the implications for our salvation if we fail to act in some way to alleviate animal suffering? Would we be willing to undergo such treatments? If not, why? In light of the corpus of scientific evidence which proves that multiple species of animal have the potential for all of the capacities used to determine rationality, cognition, etc. and that some Eastern Orthodox theologians acknowledge this fact, ought we to continue to use such criteria to differentiate between human and non-human souls? If there is biblical and patristic evidence of a type of spiritual relationship between animals and God where the ‘mind’ of the animal meets with the ‘mind’ of God do we accept or reject these teachings? Ought we to be concerned about denying animals the capacity to commune directly with God?

Implications and Application

311

Is it right to reject scriptural teachings that animals will be in the life to come? What is the purpose of animal intelligence, cognition, etc. if animals were simply a resource-a disposable life for food or fodder for experimental investigation? Is it possible that God gifts these capacities to His non-human creatures to focus our attention on our interrelatedness rather than our perceived differences? Is it possible that they have these capacities in order to prevent their misuse? Is it possible that God uses this closeness to force us to recognise that in destroying them, we destroy ourselves, either physically in the form of environmental disaster or soteriologically through the loss of our salvation? It is my hope that the leaders of our Church and its academics will engage with my questions in order that we may better define and clarify our position on animal suffering. Finally, I have stated quite clearly that neither the animal food production system or the animal testing model fits within the tenets of Christianity or comply with either ancient or contemporary teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church and should therefore be rejected.

CHAPTER TEN CONCLUDING REMARKS

Concluding Remarks This has been a challenging work. It has dealt with some of the most difficult aspects of animal suffering and my only hope is that I may succeed in showing how we as Christians have a duty to love and care for the individual animals within God’s creation. My belief that we are able to do so lies in the belief of an ever-present, relational and loving God and an ever-present, vibrant Holy Spirit, Who continues to guide us to the truth. This work contains hundreds of references to monologues, scientific studies and reports; as such, I believe it would be useful to recap some of the main arguments. In the Introduction, I outline my overarching hypothesis that the Eastern Orthodox Church has sufficient teachings to develop an inclusive theology, which tackles the subject of animal suffering. I advance the opinion that there is a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice on this subject within the Church and Eastern Orthodox academia. I further suggest that the abuse and exploitation of animals has negative soteriological consequences for those who indulge in such practices, those who know but are indifferent to animal suffering and those who know and are concerned but fail to act in order to reduce or prevent that suffering. In Chapter One, I examine the contemporary Eastern Orthodox academic literature and find that despite the considerable debate on the need to care and protect the environment there is still little engagement by leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church or its scholars on the suffering of individual animals within that environment. I point out that whilst there are positive comments that denounce cruelty, there is also ambiguity regarding our treatment and relationships with animals. This lack of engagement has led to criticism of ‘the Church’ as being indifferent to the suffering of animals and confusion and ambiguity on what the Eastern Orthodox position is on a variety of animal suffering issues. I submit that this lack of clarity arises not from a lack of material from which to produce a theological position on animal suffering but rather, from a failure to explore and gather the available material in order to create a

Concluding Remarks

313

unified view. I note “the problem” of obtaining a unified voice from the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Church, which is exacerbated by the lack of translated material from scholars in the various Orthodox countries. I have asked senior theologians if they are aware of academics works in this field and they are unable to offer examples. It would appear therefore that unlike the West, the Eastern Orthodox academic community has not addressed the subject of animal suffering in any of the broad areas outlined above or collectively as a subject. This work aims to address this gap in the academic literature. Due to the lack of engagement, I expect there to be ignorance on most aspects of this subject. As a result, I outline the generally accepted definition of animal suffering; outline the problem of relativizing degrees of suffering and identify the main areas through pictorial depictions. This approach helps to illustrate my objections to ‘scales’ of suffering, for it is clear from these examples, that whilst the methods of inflicting suffering and the types of suffering vary, the end result for the individual animal being is the same. Throughout this chapter and this work, I provide information on academic literature and relevant websites/reports for further reference. Part of my overarching argument is that in order to reduce suffering in this world, humans as Image of God, must recognize that any form of violence or misuse of animals is a misuse of our freedom; an indication of our failure to attain the Likeness of God and is against God’s will. In Chapter Two, I present teachings, which establish that concern, and compassion for animals is not a modern phenomenon but one found in the earliest periods of the Christian Church. I advance the view that there is another, though less prominent tradition, which recognises that violence and the misuse of human freedom is against God’s Will and our original nature. Therefore, I explore several elements that lie at the heart of the various arguments: God the Father, the source of all love, compassion, goodness and virtue, lives in loving relationship with His creation. All created beings are to live in harmony, peace, free of violence and suffering; as Image, we should strive to reflect the Archetype in our lives. Dispensations are not rights but a relaxation of an ideal, given to those with hardened hearts in order to bring them back to the one true God and in order to guide us away from sin and bring us back to righteousness.1 In order to bring an anamnesis of this tradition I present ‘ancient voices’ from biblical, patristic and ecclesial texts, which identify a compassionate and merciful God in loving relationship with all of His

 1

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.7.

314

Chapter Ten

creatures. I have elaborated through St. Irenaeus and others, that God is “the source of all that is good” and “has in Himself the disposition [to show kindness], because He is good.” God is patient, benign, merciful and that he who “worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him” for God “has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity. I provide specific patristic and biblical teachings that God is desirous of “mercy not sacrifice” and that God’s instruction “can never be exhausted.” These, and numerous other examples of types of behaviours and qualities that we as Image are to emulate, are evident throughout patristic texts. Crucially for this theme, the Fathers are equally clear that God “worketh no evil” and is not cruel, abusive or exploitative. I examine how God works in and through all of His creation and remind us of the patristic teachings that “no part of creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere.” I provide examples from biblical and patristic texts of acceptable and unacceptable types of behaviour and argue that we as Image striving towards the Likeness of God are to emulate only those behaviours that reflect the Archetype. I provide evidence that God’s love, compassion and mercy extends to non-human animal beings and that He desires them to be free of suffering and to live in peaceful harmony with His human creatures. I also provide evidence of ancient voices who speak of love and compassionate, merciful concern for animals. Whilst I acknowledge that it is not through good and virtuous acts alone that human beings obtain salvation, I submit that such acts reveal a genuine attempt to retrieve our pre-lapsarian and violence-free natures. I posit that we as Image should not exhibit any negative qualities or types of behaviour in our lives. Rather than accepting teachings, which declare that we may use animals in any way we choose, it is argued that we as ‘Image moving towards Likeness’ are to listen and follow God’s Word. We are to reflect God’s love, compassion and mercy to all created beings rather than indulging our passions in evil, violent acts which serve only to destroy other beings, their environments and eventually ourselves-be that as individuals or collectively as a species. We should condescend to love His creation as He loves us, thus rendering the end of abusive, sinful acts. We are to be at peace and forego violence to all; to exercise loving-kindness; practise the virtues and acquire a contrite heart through repentance. In essence, “As far as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible.” I posit that teachings on Image through participation in God’s goodness requires a heart full of mercy and compassion “after the example of God”, affirm my arguments both on behavioural guidance and the need to reflect that Image in our treatment of animals. It is through such participation and behaviours that oppression in all its forms is overcome.

Concluding Remarks

315

I believe that God did not create any of His creatures in order for them to suffer. If therefore, our use of animals results in their suffering, it is an indication that something is seriously wrong in the way the animals are used. I advance the opinion that it is no longer acceptable to interpret ‘use’ as a license for any and every type of use and certainly not for any abusive and exploitative practices. No longer should our liberty be “a cloak of maliciousness.” Modern Eastern Orthodox scholarship accepts that the interpretation of dominion as domination is an error, as it fails to recognize God’s constraints on human freedom and ignores the blueprint of God as archetype; which “by definition predetermines an analogous ethos that is imposed upon us.” This not only supports the premise that our behaviours should reflect the Likeness of God, but also acknowledges the important fact that some historical interpretations relevant to this subject are flawed. This is significant for later discussions. I establish through biblical and patristic teachings that we are to protect, rescue and behave compassionately to animals that are lost or in danger of injury. We are to provide shelter and provision and be responsible for the animal’s welfare, be they owned by one’s family, neighbour, stranger or enemy. There is no suggestion that we as individuals should pass ‘the problem’ on to someone else. In contemporary terms this would equate to teachings that we should not ignore abandoned or neglected companion or working animals, as is so often the case in contemporary societies but rather, act by taking responsibility for them in order to alleviate or prevent further suffering. In essence, we are to cooperate with God by acting in ways that reflect God’s ‘Image of Care’ for His creation. I argue that our role is to till and cherish, not abuse and destroy. I provide evidence of God’s equivalence of care for His human and non-human creatures. I illustrate how the early Church recognized that “all things” means exactly that and that animals “must be embraced.” I outline a tradition originating in the early Church and lasting until today, of all created beings knowing God, calling to God and blessing and praising God and that He in turn knows and loves all things. This occurs via some form of reciprocal spiritual relationship, which none of us can explain but is evident in Scripture, patristic teachings and ecclesial texts. This relationship is independent of human involvement, which indicates an individual animal’s integrity, dignity and agency. I argue that to deny the possibility of these independent actions would place limits on God and be akin to the heresies the Fathers fought so hard to refute. It is important to note that the recognition of sentience in certain creatures by St. Basil and others throws into doubt any suggestion that the

316

Chapter Ten

contemporary debate on animal sentience is either a ‘new’ concept or outside the boundaries of Eastern Orthodox theology. Crucially, the Fathers recognize that only humans had sinned whilst the rest of God’s creatures “persevere in willing subjection” to God. Such teachings may well give an insight into why the Fathers’ teachings focus on the human beings. It was not their lack of concern for animals but rather the recognition that God’s instructions and dispensations were required for His only sinful creature. Having outlined a framework of a theology for animals which is based upon the premise of an all-loving, merciful, compassionate and relational God, I end the chapter by trying to answer one of the most challenging questions arising in the animal suffering theme – why this all-loving and compassionate God allows the killing and consumption of non-human animals. I advance an opinion, which is as speculative as every other offered and thus likely to receive critical engagement from my contemporaries. Yet it is based upon patristic and biblical texts and research from Jewish scholars, secular anthropologists and religious historians. Significantly, when we examine biblical and patristic texts through the lens of animal suffering rather than the normative view of anthropocentrism, a new perspective arises. My discussion is set within the backdrop of an all-loving and compassionate God and, where the killing of non-human creatures was not part of God’s original plan. I posit that the answer is compound and complex with no ‘silver bullet’ answer that addresses the issue; however, I maintain that the answers lie within one specific area and that is in God’s use of dispensations. I examine patristic explanations for the original need for dispensations; their use as reminders of past sins; as moral discipline and as guidance towards salvation. Patristic sources describe how humans devised “all manner of new evils in succession” and how God’s foreknowledge of the depths of human wickedness and “insatiable sinning” would have been an important factor in developing His salvific plan. I widen my sources when examining how God uses the despised practice of animal sacrifice to change the perception of animals as gods.2 I examine God’s use of this practice to place restrictions on human freedom in order to limit the abuse to non-human animals, whilst preventing the greater abuse of human sacrifice. I note that many early and contemporary commentators use Noah as evidence of God’s providential care for all creation. Through Noah’s

 2

See again Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 12 and Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4

Concluding Remarks

317

obedience and cooperation with God, he saves a remnant of every species of God’s creation. I have no objection to this teaching and in fact would add that through his cooperation with God’s will, Noah may in one sense be seen as the archetype for the modern animal protectionist who rescues animals from harm and provides for their needs, although ultimately this title lies with God. However, when observed through the lens of animal suffering, there is more to this narrative than the traditional interpretation suggests. Despite the obvious beneficial outcomes of Noah’s cooperation with God, there is also evidence of Noah’s failure and sin when acting independently of God. This failure is another example of the misuse of human freedom. Despite the destruction of “all flesh” to erase corruption, unrighteousness and evil from the earth, Noah’s first independent act is to build an altar and kill many of the animals that God instructs him to save and protect. I reject the teaching that because God liked the sweet aroma of the sacrificed animals He changed His mind and allowed humans to kill and eat animals. This teaching focuses on the first part of a biblical verse whilst ignoring God’s important comments in the latter part. It also ignores the fact that God had only just reinforced the salvific purpose of the Ark by indicating that all creatures are to “abound on the earth and increase and multiply.” When we examine the latter part of the same verse, rather than the dispensation to kill animals, we find the second occasion when God “thought it over” and makes a critical observation of humanity. Significantly, this reflection results not in God giving humans the authority to kill animals but rather, God’s immediate declaration that humans retain evil: I shall never again curse the earth because of man’s works, although the mind of man is diligently involved with evil things from his youth: nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.3

This is critically important for the animal suffering theme for it directly links the killing of animals to God’s recognition of the continuing evil and sin in the human mind. I submit that we are to be mindful of this fact in our choice of diet. There is also a clear declaration from God that He does not intend to destroy any of His creation. Making these statements immediately after Noah’s violent act of killing the non-human animals God had instructed him to save, challenges any interpretation that God was either happy or appeased by Noah’s killings.

 3

Gn 8:21.

318

Chapter Ten

By saving a remnant of each species, God had clearly indicated His desire and established the setting and potential, for the recreation of a violence-free paradise. What transpired from Noah’s first independent action was not the peaceful harmony desired by God but rather the repetition of human violence to His non-human creation. In killing the very creatures God had instructed him to save, Noah fails to grasp the second opportunity offered to humanity to live in harmony with God and His creation. It is surely no coincidence that at this precise point, God makes His profound statement on the continuation and propensity for evil in the corrupted human creature. The consequences of Noah’s failureviolent deaths and a repetition of the Fall, are all too evident until today. When viewed through the prism of animal suffering, evidence of the continued misuse and abuse of human freedom, which brings humanity into conflict with the rest of creation, is clear for all to see. I also note how the dispensation to kill and eat non-human animals is conditional and set within a highly restrictive code of behaviour, which does not allow humans to kill with impunity. Within the sacrificial system, God imposes numerous restrictions on human freedom, which includes strict procedures, including the prohibition to consume their ‘lifeblood’. The restriction of only killing animals for sacrifice ought to raise questions on teachings that we can kill animals without restriction. These legal requirements also ensure that any suffering in the act of killing renders the animals unfit for consumption. Those touching the carcass of an unclean animal “become guilty” and could not eat the flesh of the sacrifice or un-sacrificed without atonement lest they be “cut off” again restricts the consumption of animals as food. By establishing, demanding strict adherence to many detailed and ‘messy’ dietary laws, God effectively renders the acts of slaughter and sacrifice highly prohibitive. Importantly, any suffering in the killing of an animal not only renders the animals unfit for consumption but also from uses such as clothing. Paradoxically, the sacrificial system is therefore both a dispensation to extend and restrict human freedom. I advance the opinion that we are therefore to question any teaching that God’s dispensation to kill animals for food is a right afforded to us simply because we are the most important of His creatures. I also provide biblical and patristic evidence that God was not pleased or desirous of animal sacrifices but rather, a dispensation given in order to aid the fallen human creature back to salvation and in order to prevent greater evils from occurring. I discuss the possibility that God allows animal sacrifice (the secondary evil) in order to prevent the greater (primary) evil of human sacrifice. No matter how shocking human

Concluding Remarks

319

sacrifice might seem, there is biblical and patristic evidence of its use. St. Athanasius informs us that human sacrifice was common among many communities who “without exception committed and incurred the pollution”; that human sacrifice was “the ready source of numerous evils to mankind” which both confirms the practice and links us back to my earlier points on idol worship, Noah and God’s foreknowledge of the manifestation of this human abomination. He also informs us of the “pitch of irreligion and folly” that led to the abomination of human sacrifice and that those who participated in such rituals “frustrate the kindness of Providence by their own brutal character.” He states quite clearly that such practices are not simply the result of barbarous natures but as a “special result of the wickedness connected with idols and false gods”, which resulted in the thinning of humankind “by murders of grown men and children.” I advance the opinion that God’s foreknowledge of continuing human evil and abominable practices, allows for the possibility that God sanctions the sacrifice and consumption of animals in order to prevent the greater abomination of human sacrifice/consumption and to facilitate human salvation. I submit that it is entirely plausible to reject the notion that God was in any way pleased with animal sacrifice or the consumption of creaturely flesh. It was instead a dispensation to those with hardened hearts and part of God’s salvific plan for his sinful human creature. As a result, I believe we should re-examine theological teachings, which posit that the animal creation is part of the human food chain. In light of the above arguments, I advance the opinion that the use of dispensations remains part of God’s salvific ‘route-map’ of behavioural guidance for today’s world. By limiting human freedom in these ways, God outlines a path for the contemporary Church, which facilitates both the promotion of its spiritual message and its ability to speak with an authoritative voice on behalf of God’s non-human creation. I end this chapter with four practical suggestions on how the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church may act in order to facilitate the required metanoia in the human heart: 1) By promoting a vegan/vegetarian diet. This is grounded in the Bible, the concept of ascesis and contemporary science, which highlights the damage to humans, animals and the planet caused by an animal-based diet. 2) By prohibiting intensive farming practices on Church land, in order to reinforce and live-out the desire to prevent animal suffering and promote animal flourishing.

320

Chapter Ten

3) By re-stating Church teachings on the negative soteriological consequences of hunting. 4) By prohibiting hunting on Church land, in order to protect the animals and guide humans away from evil practices and towards salvation. Skeet clubs can be the substitute offered as a dispensation in order to facilitate the salvific plan. If our leaders promote these suggestions, they would significantly reduce animal suffering and have immediate impact upon the suffering world. In Chapter Three, I discuss how early patristic texts teach that all creatures are recapitulated in Christ and that “the whole world was ransomed”, sanctified and redeemed by Christ through His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. Because of this intimate, spiritual and ontological connection, all creatures are in some way Holy, sacred and in some form of direct relationship with God. I argue that this ought to focus our attention on our role as responsible guardians of “all things” who are known and loved by God. Tradition informs us that Christ is the true Image of God, the source of all love, goodness and virtue. We are to strive towards achieving this Likeness by following Christ’s loving and compassionate relationship with “all things” in His creation. The Fathers also teach that Christ was virtuous, “without sin”, “a most holy and merciful Lord” Who “will not consent to evil that He may choose that which is good.” They also teach that God “does not use violent means to obtain what He desires.” Christ is the Archetype of the virtuous man who is “mild and tranquil”, who would “neither break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax.” Those who follow Christ by rejecting violence in its various forms will be “exalted by the Lord.” Teachings such as these indicate that any cruel or abusive acts are devoid of love and thus the antithesis of the Image we are to reflect. I posit that we are therefore to reject violence and develop the virtues through practicing mercy and gentleness to all of God’s creation regardless of the species. For the Fathers, the possibility of sharing in the divine life is realised not only through our participation in the goodness of God and sharing in Christ’s obedience but also in our willingness to sacrifice our fallen nature, with its self-indulgent sinful passions. I have explained at length that in His compassion, God devises a salvific plan for the sinful human creature and part of that plan was the establishment of various laws and dispensations. Patristic teaching is also clear that Christ not only preached the law, He extends it. I advance the opinion that humanity is not alone in the dispensation of God’s grace, for all things are included and benefit

Concluding Remarks

321

from Christ’s re-enactment and fulfilment of God’s original plan. Importantly, St. Ephrem teaches that the unwanted practice of animal sacrifice ceases through the dispensation of Christ’s Incarnation. Instead of the violent sacrifice of animals, Christ in a supreme act of loving sacrifice comes willingly into our midst. In so doing, Christ ends this form of animal suffering; extends our freedom and releases us from bondage to the Law. Noah’s failure to protect the animals after releasing them from the Ark is overturned by Christ’s Incarnation and recapitulation of “all things.” Through Christ’s obedience, He restores God’s original plan for creation. Instead of the violent sacrifice of God’s innocent non-human beings, we are to honour and glorify God by rejecting our fallen nature and attempting to achieve a transfiguration of self via Christ’s model of sacrifice, obedience and compassionate love. Importantly, patristic teachings inform us that Christ’s practice was not only to preach but also to act, “to heal those who were suffering and to keep back sinners from sin.” Christ acted and taught regardless of the power or vested interests who tried to prevent Him from doing so and again, we are to do likewise. Such teachings have relevance for those involved in trying to change the ‘animal industries’ where vested interests and desires for “evil profits” allow practices that cause immense physical and psychological suffering to animals. I argue that these teachings are also relevant for those who act in order to save and protect animals be they wild, domesticated or used in various ways for food, fur, fun, sport, or product testing. I have already noted that in the Christian tradition, humans are favoured over the non-human creation. However, I have emphasized that this does not mean that God does not love, care or provide for the nonhuman creation or, that He is indifferent to their suffering. This is evident in Christ’s teaching in Matthew, which references back to the Old Testament texts and His repetition of a similar teaching in Luke. Importantly, on this second occasion there is a change of focus from the value of ‘man’ to the ‘equivalence of care’ for both His human and nonhuman beings. Again, the same language and grammatical structure is used: Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well [pit], will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?

It is not accidental that Christ includes the human creature alongside the non-human creature in this second teaching and like all of Christ’s teachings, it is not to be ignored. Christ’s illustrates and confirms His love, compassion and mercy for all of His created beings. This not only

322

Chapter Ten

evidences an equivalence of care but also the extension of compassion and mercy to the animal kingdom. Several of the early Church Fathers acknowledge this interpretation. Christ’s teachings stand against any contemporary teaching that Christ does not concern himself with the animal creation. As Christ concerns Himself with the prevention of animal suffering on the Sabbath, it is reasonable to propose that He expects the same concern and compassionate treatment for His non-human beings during the rest of the week. It seems equally reasonable to suggest that God’s expectation and the patristic focus in these teachings, is that we as Image should not only provide animals with food and water but act, and act immediately, in order to prevent their harm or suffering. In light of Zizioulas’s teaching on holding claim to the Truth and, remembering Christ’s teaching in Luke 14:5 that we should act to prevent the suffering of both humans and animals, I advance the opinion that we ought to be ready to question any treatment or use of animals which is abusive, violent or exploitative. I posit that any such outcomes should concern us, for none such as these reflects either the Image or Likeness of God. If we are to uphold our role as Image striving towards the Likeness of God, we ought to acknowledge that Christ’s teachings challenge those who believe it is their right to misuse animals. This would include confining animals in tiny cages for food, to provide fur, ‘sport’ and ‘entertainment’. It would also include those who test chemicals, drugs or perform experimental procedures on animals when alternatives are available. In Chapter Four I state that despite our distorted Image in this fallen world we are to strive to attain the Likeness of God. Part of our role as Image is to reflect a Christ-like love for all of His created beings and to recognise our responsibility to facilitate the flourishing of all species and to prevent their suffering. I present biblical and patristic commentary that establishes the ontological link between humans and the rest of the created world and of the original pre-lapsarian “exquisite single euphonious harmony.” I argue that God sent prophets and saints throughout history to guide us on how to live compassionate and violence-free lives. I present material that portrays the saints as exemplars of this potential, as many achieved a type of pre-lapsarian existence in this fallen world. In general, the saints took care of animals by providing for their needs, protecting them from harm, offering sanctuary from hunters and, in the example of St. Giles, offering his life for the sake of his animal companion and friend. There is evidence of one saint using her influence to convince the powerful Prince of Powys that hunting with hounds was against God’s will, which resulted

Concluding Remarks

323

in the Prince banning hunting from his land. We learn that her argument was so persuasive that the Prince turned his land into a sanctuary. This is possible for Church land in our era. Another common trait of many ‘true’ saints is their friendship with animals, which stands in stark contrast to the many historical philosophical and theological arguments that separate the human from the rest of creation. Their hagiographies have an entirely positive focus, with no suggestion of conflict over territory or negativity in the befriending or establishing of loving, compassionate relationships with animals. Their authority came through their love of God, which encourages friendly, harmonious relationships with all living beings, rather than through an authority based upon arrogant self-interest, which encourages separation and domination. Importantly, there is confirmation that the misuse and abuse of animals is a sin requiring repentance. I submit that the saints’ ability to love the ‘other’ by living compassionate and merciful lives is another example of where theology and practical action combine. I advance the opinion that it is likely that a ‘true’ saint would be against the killing of animals in cruel ways or for vanity, gluttony, evil profit, fun, sport or recreation. The saints are our guides on many issues including animal protection. I posit that such guidance is as relevant today as it was in previous ages, arguably more so in our increasingly secular age. They provide virtuous, moral and ethical voices to guide us, not only in our treatment of animals but also in our journey towards attaining the Likeness of God. They are examples of people who provide care, assistance and protection through their love, empathy and mercy for both domesticated and wild animals. They easily fit within the description of early examples of animal protectionists and/or conservationists. As we struggle in the world we may, through the saints’ examples, be encouraged in the knowledge that every act of love and compassion is part of the overthrowing of the evil in this world. Whilst we may fail and fall, we are to rise up and try again. If the leaders of the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Church reaffirmed early teachings on the sin of hunting animals for fun, sport and entertainment (the games) and were to define such practices as a misuse of God’s creatures and our freedom, the outcome would be an immediate reduction in both the practice and the suffering of huge numbers of animals. At the very least one would expect condemnation of the huge problem of illegal hunting. We are to practice loving kindness, compassion and mercy to all of God’s creatures rather than indulging our passions in acts of oppressive domination and gluttony, which inevitably leads to the suffering and

324

Chapter Ten

destruction of the non-human creation and their environments. It is therefore possible for the leaders of our Church to reiterate patristic teachings on vanity and gluttony with regard to the unnecessary suffering of animals trapped or bred for the wearing of fur or reared in exploitative and cruel intensive farming practices. Early commentary recognizes the negative consequences of the ontological link between created beings, where “the evil that people have done pollutes the earth and angers God” 4and where sinful human actions, including social injustice, result in ecological crisis because “love has fled.” 5 Modern commentaries on the environment produce similar teachings, where “the lives of the saints teach us that God’s creation is destroyed by the avarice, greed, gluttony, pride and all the negative passions of humans.”6 The animal creation suffers the same fate through cruel, abusive and exploitative treatments, which also result from the avarice, greed, gluttony, pride and all the negative passions of humans, yet I note that their suffering is frequently unreferenced. In Chapter Five, I explore the posited gap between the Eastern Orthodox theory of compassion and love for God’s non-human animals and the praxis. From my research, from my experience of living in an Eastern Orthodox country and from my conversations with Eastern Orthodox clergy and laity in other Orthodox countries, I formed the opinion that there is a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice on the subject of animal suffering both within the Church and at academic level. In order to demonstrate the existence of this gap I undertook empirical research, presented as the Cyprus Case Study, which took the form of collecting data from an online survey and the undertaking of a Practical Theology and qualitative research enquiry. The results were not favourable to the Eastern Orthodox Church. The results of an earlier survey indicate that the participants believed the Eastern Orthodox Church in Cyprus was indifferent to the suffering of animals and unconcerned with animal protection. It also suggested the Church was reluctant to discuss the abuse with the animal protection agencies. The responses also indicated that many expect the Eastern Orthodox Church to play a role in preventing animal suffering. The outcomes of the C. V. A. research help us better understand the situation at pastoral level and indicate a degree of support for the suggestion of a gap between the theory and the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church in

 4

Cyrille d’Alexandrie, Lettres Festales, 7.2, SC 392:4. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Love of the Poor, 185. 6 Efthimiou, in Hallman, EcoTheology, 94. 5

Concluding Remarks

325

Cyprus. They also give an indication of the negative implications for the Church by this lack of engagement with this important subject. My questionnaire covered the majority of animal protection organisations on the island at that time and as such gives an indication or ‘snapshot’ of the perceptions of the participating organisations, as many of the comments are consistent across the groups. The results are equally conclusive, with a large percentage stating that the Eastern Orthodox Church in Cyprus is unconcerned with the suffering of animals. This aligns with the C. V. A. results in 2011. Some of the participants’ replies indicate that problems exist in their relationship between the Eastern Orthodox Church. In order to prevent identification, some groups did not participate or refused to answer some of the questions. I suggest that we might reasonably conclude therefore that several organisations were concerned about a negative reaction from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Such comments indicate a poor or non-existent relationship with the Church and ought to concern us. The refusal by some priests to engage with the subject of poisoning animals appears to support this lack of engagement. Whilst priests as individuals might ignore the subject of poisoning, as many other individuals on the island do, this is a very different situation to that described in the survey, where local people specifically asked their priests to engage with the subject and where each priest refused to do so. Such refusals indicate not only a lack of engagement at pastoral level but also provide further evidence of a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice. This too is contributing to further damaging perceptions of the Church. Referring briefly back to Chapter Four and the section on hunting and Canonical Law, if priests attended or participated in horse racing or hunting they were to be deposed. Could such laws support the argument that poisoning animals is equally unacceptable behaviour for priests, who are the primary examples of the Image of God and ‘Priest of Creation’ in this world? Despite my rather naive desire not to go near the subject of animal souls, comments made in the research meant that I could no longer avoid doing so. One such comment is worth repeating: A religious instructor to the local school and told the children that animals have no souls so it is not a problem if you treat them badly.

Whilst the linking of the acceptance of animal cruelty with the status of an animal’s soul is not Eastern Orthodox belief, the “religious instructor” allegedly taught that this was the case. This is not an isolated case for another group from a different area of Cyprus expressed a similar view.

326

Chapter Ten

This states that the Eastern Orthodox Church links the status of an animal soul with an animal’s inability to feel pain and “suffer like humans”. The linking of animal souls or lack of souls to the acceptance of inhumane treatment of animals is evident. Whilst this is not Eastern Orthodox teaching, our silence on the various manifestations of animal suffering only reinforces their beliefs and contributes to the confusion. This is why I broached the subject in the subsequent interviews with the priest and hierarchs. Comments that link animal souls with an acceptance of cruelty, or the inability to feel pain, may well be relevant for our understanding of why the debate on animal souls has continued throughout the centuries. The participants’ comments are not favourable to the Eastern Orthodox Church and provide evidence of the need for clarity on the subject. They also provide further evidence of a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice at senior and pastoral levels. Some important questions arising from these findings are as follows: How is it that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has a wealth of texts and liturgical expressions of respect for God’s creation is perceived as being indifferent to the suffering of a major part of that creation? Is it ignorance in the Church of Orthodox teachings on the subject? If so, how will this change? Is there knowledge but lack of transference or application of this knowledge to the priest’s role or to their parishioners’ behaviour? If so, how is this to change? Should all clergy attend courses on the compassionate and ethical treatment of animals and the environment as part of their seminary or in-service training? Are these courses available? If not, who will establish the courses? The linking of animal souls with the acceptance of cruelty to animals is evident. How widespread is this belief, in the clergy and laity, and how will this perception change? Should the alleged ‘irrationality’ of animals make animal suffering irrelevant to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Does ‘irrationality’ account for or have relevance to, the difference between theory and practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church in Cyprus? If so, how is this to change? I presented the research to a Cypriot priest and it is interesting to note his initial hostile response, “These women!” with his request for an interview after questioning me on the subject. Importantly, in rejecting the negative comments made by the Cypriot public and animal protectionists, the priest gives an entirely positive response. His comments represent the Eastern Orthodox Church’s position on the problems raised in the 2011 & 2012 research and as such are worth repeating. There was a positive declaration that the Eastern Orthodox Church is concerned about the welfare and protection of animals. That kindness and compassion for

Concluding Remarks

327

animals is a tradition of the Orthodox Church and that cruel or abusive treatment of animals is unacceptable behaviour. One of the most worrying aspects of this research for me was the linking of an animal’s soul with their capacity to feel pain and suffer and/or that the type of soul determined the treatment given to them. The priest expresses disbelief at such a teaching and is clear that animals feel pain. He is equally clear that an animal’s soul should be irrelevant to the way animals are treated. These are crucial teachings. Both stand in direct opposition to the many philosophers, ancient and modern, who cling to the discredited science and thought of Aristotle and Plato. It is also interesting to note that even within the highly contentious arena of animal souls we again find his teachings align with the view of the animal protectionists: that animals receive love, kindness and compassion regardless of the status of their soul. Importantly, the priest’s comments align with the view outlined in the previous chapters: we as Image should love and care for animals. If the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church affirm and promote the priest’s teaching on souls, this would be a significant step in reducing animal suffering in this world. The question on neutering received a detailed response, which contains important teachings on this worldwide problem. There are many owners (not just in Cyprus), who state that the Church forbids neutering in order to justify not having their animals neutered. In rejecting this accusation, the priest endorses the advice of animal protection experts around the world. There is also an important response regarding the poisoning of animals, with confirmation that the Eastern Orthodox Church is against the practice, which he acknowledges is a very painful death. The priest encourages people to have their animals euthanized at the veterinary clinics, rather than poisoning or abandoning them. In so doing, he reveals a degree of ignorance on how difficult this is in reality. He is unaware that many vets refuse to kill healthy animals, which leaves the owners with difficult choices and one reason why large numbers of animals are poisoned or abandoned. He differentiates between cats and dogs explaining that cats are natural hunters who can “fend for themselves” whereas dogs cannot easily do so and is why dogs suffer so much when abandoned. That he was aware of the suffering of abandoned animals is a welcome counterpoint to many damaging teachings of the past. He states that he had seen starving dogs, yet there is no mention of action to reduce that suffering. A denunciation of the practice of poisoning as a means of population control by the leaders of our Church would be another

328

Chapter Ten

welcome move in reducing the suffering of many thousands of animals across the world. Importantly, this research has established that his views are very similar to those of the animal protectionists. That neither knew of the other’s opinion is entirely due to the lack of engagement by the Eastern Orthodox Church with the animal protection organisations on the island. I believe it is important to clarify some areas of unity: x The status of an animal’s soul should have nothing to do with how animals are treated. x Cruelty to animals is not acceptable. x There is recognition that animals feel pain and suffer. x We should treat animals with loving kindness and compassion. x Poisoning and the abandonment of animals is unacceptable behaviour. x The neutering of animals is encouraged. I ask why there is a lack of engagement and evidence of hostility between these two groups, when they appear to agree on many important animal suffering and protection issues. I suggest the following possibilities: x Lack of communication/response from the Eastern Orthodox Church contributes to ignorance of animal protectionist’s views and vice versa. x Historical anthropocentric separationist theology continues to influence modern Church teachings and opinions. x Some clergy may believe that animal protectionists are indifferent to the suffering of humans. x Some clergy may link animal protectionists with those in the ‘animal liberation’ movements who are on occasions described by the police and parts of the media as terrorists. It is interesting to note that despite the hostility of the priest’s initial response, after a lengthy discussion on the theme he seemed much happier with the entire concept of people wishing to help animals. This indicates that along with an increase in communication, education for priests on the subject is likely to result in greater understanding and a willingness to engage with those whose aim is to limit/prevent the suffering of animals. It seems logical to suggest therefore, that if the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church were better known and there was engagement on the subject of animal suffering by senior Orthodox theologians and academics,

Concluding Remarks

329

the negative public opinion of the Eastern Orthodox Church would change. The priest’s interview provides further material for use in establishing an Eastern Orthodox position on animal suffering. The next stage was to seek confirmation on whether his comments complied with Eastern Orthodox teachings. Senior Eastern Orthodox theologians confirmed that the priest’s comments are consistent with Orthodox teachings. Because of their involvement, both hierarchs offered interviews in order to provide further clarity. In Chapters Six and Seven, Eastern Orthodox hierarchs acknowledge a lack of engagement from the Church on the issues of animal suffering and protection and both proffer reasons why this may be so. They inform us that the Eastern Orthodox tradition has always had a reverence for animals and been sensitive to their suffering, welfare and protection. They are clear that their authority for this statement comes from biblical and patristic teachings on compassionate care and protection of animals and creation, traditional Eastern Orthodox prayers and the numerous examples of close friendships between saints and animals. They inform us that animals are part of God’s creation and our treatment of them is both a moral and spiritual issue. They also teach that animals are Holy, have their own dignity and that we should treat them with reverence and respect. They affirm the argument that the way we treat animals is directly relevant to our reflection of God’s Image and the practice of the Christian life. We as Image are not to be cruel. We are to love all created beings who are ontologically connected to each other, God and us. They condemn as sins, inflicting pain on animals, harmful farming practices, evil profit and hunting for fun and sport. There is a rare teaching on animal experimentation, indicating as a base point, that we are to use alternatives where they exist. As such, both hierarchs affirm H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching that the misuse of animals along with the misuse of any part of creation is a spiritual matter, a type of evil and a sin, with negative soteriological implications for humans. In their acknowledgment that animals have rationality, intelligence, etc. and that animals feel pain and suffer, both hierarchs stand in stark contrast to philosophers and theologians who suggest otherwise. Crucially, they confirm that the status of an animal’s soul should have nothing to do with the way animals are treated. I submit that these important teachings indicate that the Eastern Orthodox Church ought to review teachings that were influenced by the flawed science, philosophy and theology of the past. I note that it would be helpful for the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church to acknowledge its tradition of challenging, rejecting and/or

330

Chapter Ten

adapting past teachings. This continues until today and evidenced in Met. John’s call for the Church to, “revise radically her concept of sin.”7 The hierarchs support H. A. H. Bartholomew and Met. John’s calls for education on environmental issues but extend his teaching when calling for education on the compassionate treatment and care of animals to be included into these discussions. Both support practical initiatives by the Eastern Orthodox Church to promote animal protection and proffer suggestions to facilitate this process. Teachings from the two hierarchs and the earlier teachings from the priest establish a benchmark position for our treatment, behaviour and relationship with animals. There is now clarity on many aspects of the animal suffering theme that did not exist prior to this work, including teachings that will have profound implications for the traditional Eastern Orthodox Christian theological view of animals. I list some of their important teachings: x Animal suffering and protection are theological, spiritual and moral issues. x Loving and compassionate relationships with animals are viewed in a positive light. x The status of animal souls should be irrelevant to the way they are treated. x Animals share human characteristics and capabilities such as rationality, cognition, language and intelligence. x Animals feel pain and suffer. x Inflicting pain on animals is a sin. x Profit derived from the abuse of animals is a sin. x The abuse of animals, which includes hunting for fun, is a sin with soteriological implications for humanity. x Eastern Orthodoxy has a tradition that animals will be saved. x Education on animal suffering should be included in seminary courses. x We must use alternatives to animal experimentation where they exist. The potential ramifications of such acknowledgements on the dominant theological and philosophical teachings of the past are obvious. If we combine the hierarchs’ teachings with the biblical and patristic material presented earlier, this increases the material available for

 7

Met. John, “Foreword.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, viii.

Concluding Remarks

331

discussions on the formulation of an Eastern Orthodox theological position, which specifically addresses the suffering of animals and our treatment and relationships with them. Furthermore, if the leaders of our Church promote and practice said theology, the outcome will result not only in an immediate and considerable reduction in animal suffering but also in the salvation of many human souls. I ask why, despite the increasing social concern on animal suffering issues, there has been a lack of engagement with the subject of animal suffering by the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Orthodox academics. I present several suggestions as to why this is the case. The historical focus of anthropocentrism; misinterpretation of dominion; flawed historical philosophical and theological teachings on animal rationality; animals viewed as morally and theologically irrelevant; Orthodox focus on environmental issues with little specific dialogue on the plight of animals within those environs; ignorance on the theme and, the perception that animal protectionists are non-Christian and difficult people. In Chapter Eight, I widen the research and include ethology, economics and human rationality; the misuse of technology; extending our concepts of community, justice and sin; education and the role of the Church. I note important developments in several fields of science relevant to this theme, with Ethology being of particular significance. This research challenges the traditional philosophical and theological views that certain abilities such as language, cognition, consciousness and rationality, were unique to human beings. I note that it is now generally accepted that differences are more of degree rather than absence; yet despite the overwhelming evidence some still question animals’ ‘theory of mind’ or capacity for higher level reasoning. There is also overwhelming scientific evidence that many species of animals suffer physical pain and psychological distress. Whilst some scientific data is used in the work of many Western theologians and ethicists working on the subject of animal suffering, I note that this science is rarely used or commented upon by the few Eastern Orthodox theologians who partially at least, engage in elements of the animal suffering and protection themes. I note how the contemporary debate on the environment highlights how theological anthropocentricism and its inherent separationist ethos played a large part in our exploitation, abuse and sin regarding the natural world. I briefly note how those historical influences resulted in the refusal to extend justice or mercy to animals, which in turn, determined our relationships and treatment of them. With this backdrop, it became increasingly easy to view animals as units of production-as ‘disposable

332

Chapter Ten

life’ rather than sentient beings. The desire for increased profit outweighs concerns for the animal’s need to exhibit natural behaviours. The combination of these factors has led to immense suffering of God’s nonhuman creation. Economou’s description of the misuse of technology as “war against nature” is certainly applicable to discussions on most areas of animal suffering within the ‘animal industries.’ In recent years, Eastern Orthodoxy theologians and ethicists have engaged in discussions on our misuse of our environment yet few theologians comment on our misuse of animals. More recently, the Chryssavgis and Foltze compilation contains many articles that reference animals. Whilst this is extremely encouraging, the majority of these articles are still general in nature. Arguments on our misuse of the environment have been raging for several decades and evidence of our abuse of the natural world and the suffering of the animals within it, increases year on year. I have asked why this is so, for unless we get to the root of why we fail to change our behaviour, the destruction of large parts of our planet and many of the life forms on it, is inevitable. I posit that if we can find an answer to that question, we may be able to target our messages more effectively. I note how ‘irrationality’ in non-human animals has been, and continues to be, a causal factor in animal suffering and I proffer the idea that we should review the ‘rational’ argument from the human perspective in order to better understand our inability to change our destructive behaviours. We have always believed that humans primarily act with intelligence and logic. This leads to the assumption that humans will be able to see the logic in our arguments and act accordingly. To challenge this premise, I use Kahneman’s Nobel Prize winning research, which identifies the effects of cognitive biases on human behaviour. He argues that, in the majority of cases, humans do not act rationally. He states that we have over one hundred and fifty cognitive biases. He informs us that ‘Present Bias Focus’ is responsible for the destructive tendencies of overeating, smoking, drug use, etc. Essentially, his argument is that we focus on the present situation and ignore the future consequences. Kahneman’s research helps to answer the puzzling question of why we continually fail to change our behaviours despite decades of warnings on environmental destruction, species extinction and global warming. When we consider the centuries of arguments against animals receiving justice and mercy because of their alleged irrationality, this is deeply ironic. If we fail to perceive the ‘logical’ argument, it is necessary to look for other ways of promoting these important messages. I propose that rather than appeals to logic or altruism we might gain more traction if we target our message to human selfishness, i.e. self-interest.

Concluding Remarks

333

I posit that in addition to those who directly perpetrate acts of cruelty and exploitation, those who know of such acts but are indifferent to them and those who know but shy away from trying in some way to alleviate the abuse, are in a sense giving tacit approval to that process and are accessories after the fact. A useful analogy here is the judgement and guilt of those who accept stolen goods. We create the demand. I submit that more individuals would change their behaviour towards animals if our leaders and our local priests taught on the negative soteriological consequences of our abusive and exploitative actions. This knowledge will only materialise if the Church includes animal suffering in the education of its priests and, if Eastern Orthodox academics engage with the subject of animal suffering in their deliberations on sin and evil. I submit that without such teachings, humans will continue to ignore the cosmic implications of sin and continue to abuse their freedom. I note that there is Orthodox commentary on the theme but that it has not been formulated into a unified message. Whilst Mantzarides, Stylios, Met. John and others refer to the sin in the abuse, misuse and exploitation of the environment, little comment is made on the sin of abuse, misuse and exploitation of animals. H. A. H. Bartholomew gives more clarity when stating, “Sin has a cosmic dimension and cosmological impact” 8 the “misuse of any part of creation is a sin” 9 , “a mortal sin” 10 and “an ‘unforgivable insult to the uncreated God”.11 Such teachings are applicable to the misuse of animals who are part of that creation. That this is possible is evident in H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching that the force-feeding of animals is a sin. This is an extremely important teaching for the theme. Teachings on evil are equally important for deliberations on animal suffering as they are for every other theological discussion on suffering. Harakas teaches that war is an example of evil and I ask if the use of animals in testing the weaponry used in these evil wars is also evil. I note that there is little specific reference in Eastern Orthodoxy academic debate relating to the evil perpetrated against non-human animals such as that discussed by Rowland. The Cyprus Case Study produced Eastern Orthodox teachings applicable to this theme. For example, Met. Kallistos’s teachings on “evil profit” and the “immoral use” of animals in the intensive farming practices is equally applicable to other practices in

 8

Bartholomew, “Creation Care and Ecological Justice.” Bartholomew, “A Rich Heritage.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 190, 360. 10 Bartholomew, “Thine Own From Thine Own.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 330. 11 Bartholomew, “Christmas Encyclical.” In Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 127; also “Climate Change.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 349. 9

334

Chapter Ten

the ‘animal industries.’ This aligns with H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teaching on sin as an “unforgivable insult to the uncreated God”. I argue that in order to overcome our sins against animals we must endeavour not only to purify, consecrate and sanctify ourselves through kenosis–self-emptying and humility by living virtuous and violence-free lives, all of which we have heard numerous times before, we must also understand the soteriological consequences of animal abuse. Met. John indicates his support of this suggestion when stating that if we were to facilitate a form of repentance for sins against creation, it would for him, be “the greatest reformation”. H. A. H. Bartholomew identifies every act contributing to the destruction of the natural environment as a very serious sin and of particular significance for the argument on the soteriological implications of animal suffering is the following: Those who do evil acts and just as importantly, those who are indifferent to those evil acts, together with those who harm creation even out of negligence constitutes not simply an evil, but a grave sin.12

This buttresses the argument that in addition to those who perpetrate cruel or exploitative acts; those who know but are indifferent and those who know and are concerned but do nothing to diminish the suffering, are in a sense giving tacit approval to that process and are accessories after the fact. Met. Kallistos and Bishop Isaias’s teachings that abuse to the nonhuman creation is a sin and evil and that we as Image are not to engage in any form of it also supports the argument. I posit that such teachings are not new for I presented patristic and ecclesial texts which define hunting and horse racing as examples of the “pomp of the devil”, wickedness, sin and “soul-subverting activities”. Bishop Isaias continues this tradition when defining hunting for fun or sport as a misuse of human freedom and a sin. It is acknowledged that such definitions will draw criticism from those with vested interests and from those who partake in the “traditions of men” but it is argued that this should not concern the Church or Christian laity, for Christian teaching is clear-we are to stand against evil in all its forms, even unto death. If we reflect upon the forms and level of evil and sin in our world today, it is understandable that many believe there is little hope of reducing any form of suffering. There is that possibility of course, for in order to reduce animal suffering, humans must recognize that any form of violence, any form of misuse or indifference is wrong. They also need to



12 Bartholomew, “The Ascetic Corrective.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace; also, “Hunger and Poverty,” 201.

Concluding Remarks

335

understand that how they treat ‘nature’, ‘creation’ and animals is “a barometer” of our relationship with God and each other. Calls for the widening of our concept of sin to include the abuse and exploitation of creation and of the need for transfigured lives have clear relevance for animal suffering. As ‘right’ as these teachings are, it is necessary to recognise that an occasional Patriarchal statement, though important and welcome, is unlikely to be as effective as regular teachings from parish priests. If we pray for the cessation of every form of violence, then it seems logical to conclude that we ought not to exclude any form of violence to animals, no matter how inconvenient this might be for us as individuals or societies. In essence, my argument is that the sin and evil of abuse, misuse and exploitation of animals are manifestations of the very same sin and evil perpetrated against children, women and men. This is evident in the link between animal abuse and human interpersonal violence and in the extension of animal experimentation to human experimentation. H. A. H. Bartholomew and Met. John, urge us to extend our understanding of community 13 , to give a voice to the rest of creation whose rights are violated 14 and to extend our love to the non-human world. 15 H. A. H. Bartholomew also advocates extending justice “beyond one’s fellow human beings to the entire creation.” He teaches that we are to respond to nature “with the same delicacy, the same sensitivity and tenderness, with which we respond to a human being in a relationship.” This extension to the normative understanding of caring relationships might seem a contemporary fashion yet as noted in Chapters Two and Three, this would be a misreading of Eastern Orthodox tradition. The challenge is how we are to apply contemporary teachings on extending our understanding of community, justice, rights and caring relationships with animals, to the problem of animal suffering. I ask what justice, mercy and compassionate relationships mean for the non-human animal beings who suffer from abuse and exploitation and, who will decide? If animals are truly to be included into our community and to be accorded ‘rights’ we would firstly need to refrain from referring to them as ‘resources’ and recognise them as examples of God’s created beings. I advance the opinion that if animals were truly to receive justice, we would not be able to justify our present animal food productions systems, which cause harm, suffering and death to billions. I argue that if we are to “speak

 13

Bartholomew, Speaking the Truth in Love, 297, 280. Bartholomew, “Caretaker of the Environment.” 15 Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107; also, Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 297. 14

336

Chapter Ten

for the voiceless” we ought to be advocating drastic alterations to the animal food industries; favouring the sentient beings over the vested interests of “evil profit”. I also ask, in light of such teachings, if we can justify the testing of a variety of chemicals and industrial products on animals, many of whom suffer terribly and die in their millions each year because this method is cheaper than developing humane alternatives. I note that animals would also have the right not to suffer abuse or exploitation in other ways, such as from hunters who kill for fun and matadors who delight in the killing of bulls. They would require the right of protection from vanity, such as use of fur in fashion and the right not to lose their freedom to satisfy human entertainment needs in circuses and zoos. I recognise that these are inconvenient truths, yet I argue that they are necessary areas to consider and debate if we are to apply these contemporary teachings, reduce animal suffering and effect real change in human hearts. I acknowledge that this will not be easy, for as I have noted, there is a gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice and difficulties in changing attitudes, habits and the “traditions of men”. 16 Despite these difficulties, we are beginning to witness a change that will gather momentum when all the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church practice their voice on behalf of the voiceless, in their stand against all forms of sin and evil in the contemporary world. For example, H. A. H. Bartholomew affirms patristic teachings that our love and compassionate care should extend to other creatures and affirms the ontological unity of created beings which recognizes their individual worth, dignity and agency. He also teaches that all creation also requires an appropriate veneration and refers to this as a “deep ecology” that is “inextricably linked with deep theology”. This mutual ontology not only has relevance for discussions on the sanctification and salvation of animals but also ought to influence our treatment of animals in the ‘animal industries’ and elsewhere. If animals are sacred and saved, what are the soteriological implications for us if we allow violent and abusive practices to continue without comment? These profound teachings have obvious implications for our treatment of all forms of animals. His teachings also echo Met. Kallistos’s teaching that as Image of God we ought to include into our circle of compassion, not only the cute animals but also those who are less so. I recognise that this is extremely challenging. Whilst it is easy to include dogs, cats, horses etc., we are to include fish and those animals labelled as pests, vermin or for sport. Such teachings ought to lead us to

 16

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:12.

Concluding Remarks

337

revisit and clarify Eastern Orthodox Church teachings that relate to the issue of human-animal separation, which as we have noted, has led to the immense suffering of non-human beings. Thus, love for God, love for human beings, and love for animals cannot be separated sharply. There may be a hierarchy of priority, but it is not a sharp distinction of comparison.17

H. A. H. Bartholomew’s permission to “love” animals gives further authority to Bishop Isaias’s teaching on a subject that is full of ambiguity. Some teach that we are to love and befriend animals18 whilst others view such behaviours as an “affront to God”. 19 H. A. H. Bartholomew and Bishop Isaias’s teachings reinforce the argument that just because humans are God’s regent 20 this does not equate to a lessening of God’s love, compassion and mercy for the rest of His creation. The teaching that caring for animals is not merely an emotional reaction but one evidencing profound spirituality is an important one for it addresses, or ought to, the criticisms that animal protectionism is mere sentimentality and, that loving relationships with animals are a morbid substitute for human relationships. His comments buttress the argument that the Eastern Orthodox Church has an important role in speaking out against the abuse and exploitation of the animal world. For as I have noted, those outside the Church such as conservationists and animal protectionists are frequently dismissed or abused for their troubles. I posit that this type of criticism is one other factor in why there is a lack of Eastern Orthodox engagement on any theme related to animals. In Chapter Nine, I advance the opinion that our traditional understanding is that “all things” are held in unity in Christ. We should not therefore, shy away from challenging any argument that wishes to separate us from the rest of God’s creation. Chapter Nine is the most challenging, for it examines the implications of our categorisation of animals as beings who do not possess the right to an eternal life with God. I do so through the examination of two areas: the animal food production system and the animal testing model. Both models cause immense suffering and arise from the view that animals are mere resources, units of production or ‘disposable life’, rather than created beings with individual needs who are loved by God.

 17

Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107. See Met, Kallistos & Bishop Isaias (2014) interviews. 19 Sakharov, St. Silouan. 20 I do not suggest that God is absent. 18

338

Chapter Ten

I acknowledge that some might argue that the topics covered in this chapter are outside the sphere of Eastern Orthodox theological discourse. I counter that argument by referencing back to the Fathers who spoke on a variety of the issues of their day. Both the animal food production industries and the animal testing model are important subjects for millions today, not only because of the animal suffering involved, but also because of the significant impact upon our environment and human health. I note that an exhaustive investigation of either subject is not possible, as each would require its own monograph. I try instead to balance the need for facts and realism whilst limiting the material used and being mindful of the need to be compassionate to the reader. I previously discussed ancient teachings on aspects of our diet in Chapter Two and I give a brief summary of my arguments on God’s dispensation to eat non-human animals. Dispensations were part of God’s salvific plan for His only sinful creature and given in order to guide humans away from idol worship and ‘greater’ abominations and evils. Crucially, patristic and biblical evidence informs us that God “wanted none of these things”. God did not instruct or desire animal sacrifice but required instead a sacrifice of praise and a contrite and humble heart. It is important to note that the greatest dispensation of all ends this “hateful” practice. God’s original choice of diet for us and thus the diet best suited to us is the violence-free diet of vegan/vegetarianism. A key point often lost in this discussion is that God does not command us to eat animal food products. This was a dispensation given in a fallen world given to those with hardened hearts. We are still free to continue with His original violence-free choice for us. That this is still His preferred diet is evident in His provision of vegan food to the Israelites wandering the desert. When the Israelites pester Him for animal-based food, many humans lose their lives because of their demands. In order to protect His non-human beings God enacts a type of damage limitation exercise, achieved by strict restrictions on human freedom through complex dietary laws. Christ’s comments after Peter’s vision is Christ addressing the issue, common in that time, of Jews continuing to practice the sacrifice of animals. Christ is clear that nothing in His creation is unclean. I continue by noting the challenge of how we are to apply both ancient and contemporary teachings on compassionate care for “all things” in creation and how we are to extend our understanding of community, justice and rights, to animals within these two industrial models. I note that Eastern Orthodox theologians repeatedly call for humanity to change its moral code from one based on a theory of continual consumption, to

Concluding Remarks

339

one with a Eucharistic and aesthetic ethos of love, virtue, sacrifice, abstinence and purification of sin. In essence, this reminds us of patristic teachings to restrict and control our needs. H. A. H. Bartholomew continues to reflect the asceticism of the early Fathers when teaching on the urgent need for changes in human behaviour. He states, for example, that in our greed and lust for ever-increasing profit we “violently and cunningly subordinate and exploit creation.” This not only destroys creation but also “undermines the foundations and conditions necessary for the survival of future generations.” Keselopoulos addresses some of the problems associated with the animal food industry. He explains that the famines in Africa caused by drought and desertification are due to the monoculture of commodities to supply the animal food of the North. I agree with his analysis that our misuse of the land has created harm and imbalance in the natural world, resulting in harm to both humans and animals alike. I ask whether it is a sin to use this system once we become aware of its devastating effects. I note that whilst Met. Anthony acknowledges the link between the eating of animals with our inability to transfigure our fallen lives and ascend to God, Keselopoulos argues that vegetarianism breaks this circle. I note that many ascetics were and are vegan/vegetarian, which ought to remind us of God’s original dietary choice for us and the most appropriate dietary path to follow. It is again important to remember the fact that whilst God gave us the dispensation to eat meat, He does not command or force us to do so. I note that if Met. Anthony had known more about the cruelty involved in animal-based food production he may also have chosen to become vegan. Met. Kallistos recognizes this possibility. I indicate that part of our deliberations on the animal food production industries would require us to be knowledgeable not only on the systems used but also in the process of rearing and killing the animals used for our food. I add to Keselopoulos’ points by bringing attention to the fact that by breeding such vast numbers of animals we have created serious negative impacts for our environment and an important factor in global warming. Having outlined an Eastern Orthodox theory of love and compassion to all creatures, I ask how we can apply it to the reality. I ask for evidence of justice, mercy or inclusion into our community for the animals used in these systems. When we become aware of the harmful realities of eating animal food products, we attain a greater understanding of why Met. Kallistos describes his experience of intensive farming as unchristian and the financial gains as “evil profit”. I draw attention to the detrimental health effects of consuming animal products. I explain that this in part is due to the marketing of animal

340

Chapter Ten

products as being healthy, yet when we examine the research into diet and ill health we see a direct correlation between adopting the animal-based diets in developing countries with an increase in ‘Western’ health problems, which includes obesity. H. A. H. Bartholomew’s acknowledgement of the violence and inhumane process involved in the force-feeding of animals as an example of the exploitation of nature “in greedy and unnatural ways” is an important contribution to the discussion. He also acknowledges the link between certain practices and harm to animal and human health. I ask whether, in so doing, he had identified these processes as sins. I submit that these practices indicate not only the desire for “evil profit” but also continuing human arrogance and misuse of our freedom. His teaching on the overthrowing of the natural order is equally applicable to the restrictions on animal freedom in intensive systems where small cages or enclosures restrict their movements and natural behaviours. These would include gestation and veal crates; ‘battery’ and crush-cages; small cages or enclosures for animals with fur, or wild animals kept for human curiosity and entertainment. Scientific evidence proves that keeping animals in these conditions causes physiological and psychological distress and ill health. It is reasonable to include his specific example and my additions to it as further examples of sins against animals. By our demands for increasingly cheap animal food products, we are in part, guilty of creating the very cruelty we abhor. I recognise that the consumption of animal products is the norm for many cultures and despite numerous health warnings associated with the animal-based diet, huge numbers of people continue to eat themselves into ill health. I note that the challenge for extending our community, justice and rights to animals will not be easy, for those in these industries and those who consume its products need to accept that changes are necessary. I posit that changing the attitudes of those who run these industrial practices will be difficult if not impossible without intervention from outside. The leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church could play a significant role, just as they have done in their engagement with environmental issues. I advance the opinion that if it is our individual Christian duty to identify injustices and act to prevent them, it seems reasonable to conclude that this ought to be the case for the leaders of our Church. I proffer some suggestions on how we as individuals and as a Church can achieve this. The concept of fasting and aesthesis is in Eastern Orthodox psyche and I advance the opinion that if our Patriarchs and Bishops were to declare their intention not to consume or provide animal products at their meetings

Concluding Remarks

341

this would send a strong message to both clergy and laity. I propose that our leaders should urge Orthodox Christians to give up entirely or, as a first step, abstain from foods produced through intensive farming practices. As a way of facilitating this, the Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals charity is working in an ecumenical context to produce a framework to guide the policy and practice of Churches and other Christian institutions in relation to farmed animal welfare. It aims to develop resources and work with these institutions to support the development and implementation of policy in this area. Eastern Orthodox Church involvement in such initiatives sends a clear message to the manufacturers that it is time to change their practices. There is now Eastern Orthodox commentary to support this effort. Met. Kallistos has commented on “evil profit” in the farming industry and Abbot Khalil has urged Christians “to avoid eating meat wherever possible out of mercy for the animals and care for creation.” I suggest that if the leaders of our Church promote the Abbot’s teaching, the impact on animal suffering, human health and environmental damage would be enormous. I note that an essential part of this process requires educating our priests on the problems associated with the animal food production industries. This training would enable the priests to teach a coherent message that will result in advancing our spiritual journeys; reducing animal suffering; improving human and animal health and immediate improvements in the environment. In this context, the leaders of our Church would also be reaffirming the early Church tradition that we should act to prevent the suffering of God’s non-human beings. I state quite clearly that the existing animal food industry does not fit within the tenets of Christianity or comply with either ancient or contemporary teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. As such, it ought to be rejected. The second topic of investigation is the animal testing model. This is an extension of the Eastern Orthodox environmental debate on the misuse of technology. I examine this subject to see if Eastern Orthodox teachings can offer insights that could reduce the animal suffering within this system. I note again, that we are to include ‘creation’, ‘nature’ and the ‘environment’, all of which include animals, into our community and are encouraged to extend them justice and rights and to treat them “with the same delicacy, the same sensitivity and tenderness, with which we respond to a human being in a relationship.” As Image of an all-loving and compassionate God, this is only to be expected. I ask if we are to apply these teachings to the animals used in the animal testing model and if not, why.

342

Chapter Ten

I recall how Mantzarides among others acknowledged that historical anthropocentrism has resulted in our egocentric and utilitarian use of nature which has resulted in a “separation and alienation” from nature, which has “been the source of an unbridled disregard for the impact of technology upon the environment.” This separation has also led to an unbridled disregard for the way we use technology against animals. I argue that our focus on preserving the human has resulted in a failure to question the suffering of animals involved in the animal testing model. Mantzarides also states that the wrong use of technology has led to “waging war against nature” which eschatologically he equates to the “Apocalyptic beast and his followers.” This definition is apt for discussions on the animal testing model. Demetropoulos reminds us of the traditional Eastern Orthodox position when interpreting dominion as protecting creation rather than as “a license to exploit it” and this is equally pertinent to the discussion. I note patristic teachings on the sacredness, holiness and dignity of each created being and state that our treatment of each creature used in the animal testing model ought to concern us. From the earliest teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, there have been guidelines for our behaviour and our use of technology or scientific procedures should be no exception. I note that whilst there are problems in achieving a unified voice from the Orthodox Church, there are nonetheless, useful contemporary teachings, which help to define some parameters for the discussion. Bishop Isaias lays the foundation when teaching that we must use non-animal alternatives when they are available. Vachicouras adds that our role as Image of God restricts our freedom. Crucially, this Image not only creates, it also offers protection, mercy and compassion. H. A. H. Bartholomew teaches that a reason for rejection procedures is “because it has repeatedly led to tragic consequences for humanity and the environment.” This draws our attention to the point on being mindful of holding predetermined conclusions and a blanket acceptance of certain methodologies. Whilst a leading Orthodox ethicist accepts animal testing it too is not without restriction: “as long as the experiments are necessary to test drugs, surgical procedures, or other medical protocols” and less explicitly, “Animal experiments should he conducted humanely and designed to minimize pain.” In the ecclesial text for 1st September, we ask God for “all” to be free from “harm” and “from every abuse.” I suggest our acceptance of the animal testing model brings an anomaly. Despite our tradition of reflecting the Image of an all-living and compassionate God and the encouragement to extend justice, mercy and

Concluding Remarks

343

delicate, loving relationships to animals, we have accepted the animal testing model. This model prevents individual animals from all manner of flourishing and allows various levels of physical and psychological injury, suffering and ultimately death. I argue that if we examine the procedures undertaken, many of these tests cause severe physical pain; many are conducted without aesthetic or pain relief; all cause varying degrees of psychological distress and all of them are conducted against the animals’ will. All of these outcomes stand against our traditional teachings on our role as Image of a loving and compassionate God and, of our duty to care for “all things” in God’s creation. I acknowledge that whilst some may cringe at my suggestion that this is a form of torture, it does not detract from its truthfulness. I posit two reasons for the cause of this anomaly. Firstly, because we have a predetermined conclusion that the animal testing model is not harmful to humanity; secondly, because of the historical separationist theology and philosophy mentioned above. I note that when we examine the available research on the animal testing model, such as Linzey and Linzey (2017) and Bailey and Taylor (2016) we find few systematic studies examining the validity of this model. According to Knight (2011) the use of this model in advancing human health or significant biomedical knowledge is poor. The USFDA state that between 92-97% of drugs that pass pre-clinical tests on animals “fail to make it to the market because they are proven to be ineffective and or unsafe in people.” If this level of failure were found in any other industry, it would be rejected and substituted with procedures that are more reliable. I argue that such evidence seriously questions whether the model is of benefit to human health. I ask why the failure rate is so high and give several contributing factors: the species used are not human, as animals experience physical pain and mental suffering, which includes fear, trauma, stress, distress, anticipation and terror, their physiology alters and the results will be suspect. Knight states that these factors, in addition to creating significant animal welfare and ethical problems, distort a wide range of experimental outcomes, such as those dependent on accurate determination of physiological, behavioural, or cognitive characteristics in animal models. A report from leaders in the drug development industries supports his analysis when confirming that the poor predictability of animal experiments is one of the major challenges facing the drug discovery industry. I provide evidence that the small percentages of drugs that are licensed are not universally safe for humans. I also outline the phenomenon of publication bias, which gives a distorted view of the efficacy of the animal

344

Chapter Ten

testing model. I note that because of the evidence provided we might better understand why there are serious doubts both inside and outside of the scientific community over the reliability of the animal testing model. I submit that this model fails the Orthodox caveats or outlined parameters and throws into question the belief that the animal testing model is the correct model to use. I ask challenging questions. Are we right to sacrifice millions of God’s creatures, many of whom suffer and die in immense pain, in order to achieve such a tiny proportion of usable products? If we accept the continuing use of the animal testing model despite the worrying evidence and regardless of the animal suffering, are we in danger of teaching that only human suffering is relevant to God? If so, are we guilty of the same type of heresy the Fathers fought so hard to prevent? I note that it is easy to discuss this topic in isolation from the practical realities of the animals in laboratories. This is entirely understandable because many tests are extremely distressing; yet if we are to define our position on this subject it cannot be in ignorance of the harrowing facts. Our unnamed ethicist allows animal experimentation but adds that the processes be designed to limit pain and used humanely. I ask if this is the case and if not, if we are to reject them. The first example given has beagle dogs undergoing tests, not for a new cure of some human disease but for a share in a lucrative market where drugs were already available. Out of compassion for the reader, I do not repeat the description, though it is worth noting that as we read this work, thousands of similar tests are being performed. Bearing in mind the aforementioned comments of the need to extend community, justice, rights and delicacy in our treatment to animals and the caveats on proof of benefit and avoidance of pain, is it acceptable to allow animals to suffer the agonies associated with such tests simply to increase a manufacturer’s profits? The second example of the ‘shuttle-box’ is a ‘non-invasive’ procedure used by experimental psychologists. These types of test continue in experimental laboratories around the world. I note that there is no data-bank to record such tests or their outcomes; indeed, there is no data bank on animal testing as there is in human testing. There is therefore, nothing to prevent the replication of this or any other test; the replication of the suffering involved or the inevitable fate of the animals used in other laboratories throughout the world. I note that the language used to describe the process, ‘non-invasive’, disguises the harmful reality. I ask if such procedures are acceptable to us. I note that we have learnt more from observations in the wild, than we have learnt from decades of observing animals in laboratories.

Concluding Remarks

345

In addition to doubts over the reliability of the animal testing model for the advancement of human health, millions of animals die in toxicology/ product testing. H. A. H. Bartholomew teaches that it is a sin to force-feed animals in order to produce our food. Using his teaching, we can argue that it is also a sin to force-feed harmful products to animals so that we can brush our teeth or clean our toilets. I ask if these practices are examples of the right use of God’s creatures and if they comply with the restrictions and caveats expressed earlier. I submit that they are further examples of the misuse of human freedom. I note Attenborough et al, call for animal experimentation on apes to end because alternatives are available. I ask why these alternatives are not used and suggest that economics and lazy science are likely to be in play. Undercover investigations discover many instances of abuse to animals by technicians working in laboratories either through “cruel disposition” or in attempts to cut costs. Many countries have no animal welfare regulations let alone guidelines on their use within laboratories. By allowing the testing on animals, we open the door to testing on humans. It is reasonable to conclude that many senior Eastern Orthodox theologians if not all, are unaware of the various problems thus far described. If we are to speak on behalf of the voiceless, are we not right to examine if such experiments and the animal testing model itself is essential to human health and a benefit to humanity and the animals within our environment. Even if they are, we ought to be cognisant of the suffering involved, for it could be a warning of another misuse of our freedom. I submit that accepting the animal testing modelling without challenge is an example of not presenting the “whole story” or “the fullness of truth.” This brings us to the question on what we as individuals and as leaders of our Church can do in relation to this aspect of animal suffering. How are we to apply the proclamations in the ecclesial texts for the 1st September, or the teachings on compassion and mercy to “all things”, if we allow animals to be used in this way? I attempt to find a way forward and make the following seven suggestions: 1) Through prayer. We should pray to God asking Him to open the hearts of those with the power to change the present system to one that uses alternative methods to animal experimentation. 2) Through engagement. This will enable the development of a position on animal testing based upon the Image of an all-loving and compassionate God. 3) Stepping into the secular world in order to prevent abuse and suffering to God’s creatures.

346

Chapter Ten

4) Teaching that where alternatives to animal testing are available scientists and researchers ought to use them. 5) Encouraging scientists to develop alternatives to the animal testing model. 6) Declaring the intention not to use substances tested on animals in our Churches and on Church land. This would send a clear message to the manufacturers and their shareholders that it is time to provide alternative models and practices. These range from cosmetics through to household cleaning products. 7) Non-investment in companies that test products on animals. By acting in these ways, the leaders of our Church would play a significant role in reducing the suffering inflicted upon God’s non-human animal beings. The majority of these proposals could begin whilst our theologians determine a position on this important theme. Finally, I state my belief that any system that legalizes violence to animals is not compatible with the tenets of Christianity or our role as Image of an allloving and merciful God and ought to be rejected. It is deeply ironic that I end Chapter Nine with a subject I had so wished to avoid. I had hoped that by bringing an anamnesis of a lesserknown tradition, that I would persuade my colleagues to engage with the subject of animal suffering. I may well have achieved that; however, I realise that to address the subject of animal suffering one must also address the denial of an eternal life with God for the rest of the created animate world. I outline how the flawed science and philosophy of Aristotle influences the teachings of the Church. I also outline how these teachings led to the denial of cognition, mercy and compassion to animals, with the extreme example being that because they did not possess language, they could not think or feel pain and suffer as we do. I provide scientific evidence and theological commentary, both ancient and modern, to show that that position is no longer viable. I ask the leaders of our Church to review theological teachings on this important subject and in order to facilitate their discussion I outline three possible options and consequences: 1) The Church can continue to ignore the issue and state that the differences between animals and humans remain as stated and thus the categorization of ‘irrationality’ and non-eternal souls will remain. The outcome of this option is that animals will continue as a form of disposable life and suffer the abuse and exploitation that arises from it.

Concluding Remarks

347

One of the tenets of Eastern Orthodox Christianity is that the Tradition must not contradict Scripture. As Met. Kallistos notes, there is evidence of animals in the age to come and a classic example of this is Isaiah’s prophecy. St. Irenaeus acknowledges that “all things” are recapitulated in Christ and that nothing in creation has gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only. St. Basil of Seleucia taught that Christ saved the world and liberated the earth and recounts all the benefits of salvation including the principle of purification for the world and a “renewing of nature”. St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught, “The whole world was ransomed” by Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. There is also the potential for a type of Gnostic heresy in teachings that only humans have a consciousness of God; that only humans have a relationship with God and that only human suffering is relevant to God. I believe I have produced enough theological evidence to show that option one is no longer a credible option. 2) The Church can state that the differences remain; the categorization

remains the same but that the status of animal souls should have nothing to do with the way animals are treated. This option attempts to address the view that as animals have noneternal souls, it does not matter how they are treated. It fails however to address the issue of animals as disposable lives with no eternal life with God. 3) Church leaders can redefine the difference between humans and animals. They could reject the categorization of animals as ‘irrational’ beings and focus upon God’s gift of Image. Only humans have the power to create new forms of life, the power to protect all life and the power to destroy all life through the misuse of their freedom. If promoted alongside the compassionate teachings throughout this work and elsewhere, this ought to prevent the view that animals are objects of disposable life. Animals could be allotted a soul which identifies them as Holy, sacred beings who are loved and valued by God and whose suffering is against God’s will. In this way, the contemporary Fathers finally rescue the non-human animal creation from the Hellenic tripartite framework of souls, just as they are rescuing the environment from the flawed interpretation of dominion as domination. Our leaders can reject the ancient categorization for one that better reflects an all-loving and compassionate God and, the Eastern Orthodox Church, which extends

348

Chapter Ten

love, justice and mercy to all creatures in creation. In this option, we offer a unification of theological and ethical thought, where compassion, coupled with the responsible use of freedom extends to all God’s creatures. I indicate how contemporary theological discourse recognizes that the urgently needed metanoia is only likely to materialize if humanity hears a different voice to that proclaimed by those with stakes in maintaining the present systems of increased consumption and profit. 2016 and 2017 have seen some interesting outcomes in the field of politics, which include the recent ‘Brexit’ result in the UK and the election of a new President of the USA. Political analysts posit that this is a rejection of the ‘establishment’ and ‘globalization’, which has failed to listen to or address the concerns of the people. Whilst one cannot be sure of the consequences of either of these outcomes, we might view this period as a Kairos – a brief moment in time that has eternal significance. I am not alone in recognizing the urgency for us to act on behalf of creation and whilst I agree that it is not too late to act, I advance the strong belief, shared by many, that it is nearly too late to act. I view this as a critical point of change, which opens an opportunity for the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its academics to express a strong spiritual voice on behalf of all creation, in order to focus attention on matters other than the economy. This powerful, moral and spiritual voice is found in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has the historical teachings, authority and structure to stand as advocate in an increasingly sinful world. We have seen this power evidenced in our proclamations against the abuse of our seas and rivers and of the exploitation of the earth. It is for these reasons that I call for active engagement and discussion on the subject of animal suffering by leading Eastern Orthodox theologians and academics. However, for this voice to materialize, engagement by our leaders and its academics is required. Met. John speaks to the point: For they [Church and theology] must have something constructive to say on matters like this, or they risk being unable to live up to their claim to the Truth. A truth, which does not offer life, would be empty of meaning.21

I submit that “matters like this” ought to include animal suffering. In order to facilitate this engagement, I provide outlines for academic research in the field and a framework for a seminary module on protecting God’s non-human animal creation. I also opine that the contemporary leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church could use God’s ‘dispensation

 21

Met. John, “Preserving God’s Creation.”

Concluding Remarks

349

model’ to undertake practical initiatives, such as the banning of hunting on Church land and the establishment of Skeet clubs as alternatives. This would restrict the abuse of human freedom and evil practices, in order to reduce animal suffering and the wanton destruction of nature whilst continuing to save human souls. If this premise is accepted, it is but a short step to argue as I do, that if we know of cruelty and abuse to animals then we ought to abstain from purchasing or consuming any products produced by the abusive practices outlined above. That this is possible is evidenced in part by the millions of individuals around the world both Christian and non-Christian, who actively refrain from consuming animal food products because of the violence and suffering involved in the production process; refrain from using products tested on animals and refrain from killing animals for fun, fur or leather products. That this requires sacrifice is undoubtedly true but it is argued that it is sacrifice of self that is both required and representative of the Archetype. At the beginning of this work, one scholar stated that Eastern Orthodoxy provided “little clear, direct and specific guidance regarding a range of environmental issues.” Whilst I tend to agree with his assessment, I suggest that this lack of clarity arises not from a lack of material from which to produce such an environmental or indeed animal theology and ethic but rather, from a failure to explore the available material in order to produce them. Until now if one needed guidance or information on the subject of animal suffering, one turned to non-Orthodox theologians. This work ends this situation. It not only provides material that will enable leading Eastern Orthodox theologians and scholars to engage in discussions on many aspects of animal suffering it also provides material for the education of our priests. I recognise that I do not have all of the answers. The material and references contained within this work only begin to outline the foundations of an Eastern Orthodox theology that specifically addresses the subject of animal suffering. For this reality to materialise the suggestions and ideas need to be accepted or adapted in order to define an Eastern Orthodox position on this important subject. What should not happen is for them to be ignored. I have shown that any indifference to creaturely suffering is a sin that will require judgement. Some will of course, critically engage with my arguments and the most obvious is that such subjects are outside the bounds of normal theological discourse. In order to avoid that accusation this work has been grounded throughout in biblical and patristic commentary, which establishes the foundations of non-violence to animals and supplements it with contemporary Eastern Orthodox commentary on extending love,

350

Chapter Ten

compassion, community, justice and mercy to the non-human animal creation. As I draw this discussion to a close, I return to the overarching hypotheses proposed at the beginning of this work and examine whether I have proven its three component parts. The first part proposed that there was not only a gap in Eastern Orthodox literature and academic debate on this theme but also a gap between the posited theory and the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church both at senior and parish level. By undertaking a detailed literature review, examining the social science research by the C. V. A. conducting the Cyprus Case Study and interviews with leading Eastern Orthodox theologians, I submit that this is proven. The second part was determining if the Eastern Orthodox Church had sufficient teachings to develop a ‘theology’ for animals. I have provided numerous teachings from the early Church until today on different aspects of the subject to form the basis of an inclusive theology, which addresses the subject of animal suffering. In so doing, I prove the second part of the hypothesis. The final part advances the idea that our abuse, misuse, exploitation and cruelty to animals are sins that have soteriological implications for humanity. It proposes that God loves and protects His non-human animals and that their suffering is against His will. Biblical, patristic and contemporary teachings by H. A. H. Bartholomew, Met. Kallistos and Bishop Isaias and others, have all determined specific acts of animal abuse and exploitation as sins and evil. More broadly, H. A. H. Bartholomew teaches that the misuse of any part of creation is a sin, a mortal sin and an “unforgivable insult to the uncreated God.” Such teachings ought therefore to apply to the misuse of animals who are part of that creation. As sins are part of the criteria used to judge us, any form of abuse and exploitation of both human and non-human animals will have detrimental implications for our salvation, thus proving the final portion of my hypothesis. I finish with a challenging premise. Eastern Orthodoxy believes that the Holy Spirit continues to guide us to the truth. We believe that God sent the Prophets of old to warn us of the consequences of our sinful behaviours and there is no reason to suppose that He does not do so today. Christ’s comment that prophets are unlikely to be recognised in their own time, is of course a worry; and I hasten to add that I do not consider myself such an individual as I am only too aware of my many sins. This does not detract from the fact that God has sent them to guide us away from the abyss. Perhaps some are included within these pages. The key point here is whether we have the ears to hear their warnings or, will their voices like many before them, continue to cry in the wilderness?

APPENDIX A

This appendix provides additional information from the Cyprus Case Study in Chapter Five.

Contents 1) 2012 Animal Protectionist Questionnaire: Questions and Replies 2) Documentary evidence: 2 a. Fig. A-1, “Mother’s letter” 2 b. Fig. A-2, “Reader’s letter: Editor’s choice” 2 c. Fig. A-3, “Holy Insult”

1) 2012 Animal Protectionist Questionnaire: Questions and Replies.1 Q.1. In your opinion, is the suffering of animals, something the Orthodox Church should be concerned with? Replies: Yes = 100%. When asked for an explanation, these were their comments: a) They can help the terrible situation that currently exists on the island. There is no respect from our society for animals in general (or for nature in general). People have become very selfish, and this is not the Orthodox way of living. The Church can help and has the moral obligation of helping. b) Recently, the local Church in [x] sent a religious instructor to the local school and told the children that animals have no souls so it is not a problem if you treat them badly. Our friend’s son came home in tears to his Cypriot father and catholic Maltese mother as his family have lots of pets. c) During some poisoning in [x] a number of our supporters asked their local priests to consider reminding Churchgoers to remember that all animals are God’s creation and poisoning dogs and cats is wrong, they all refused.

 1

In order to protect participant anonymity, areas are omitted.

352

Appendix A

d) Any Church should be teaching people to be responsible caretakers of the planet to encompass all living things both flora and fauna. It is not enough to just use everything that God has placed on this planet for our own ends. We should have a responsibility to ensure that all living things thrive, prosper and are free from pain and suffering. We should certainly not condone bringing pain and suffering to those in our care. e) Church should be actively involved to educate their congregation on the need for proper care for animals and the need for neutering programs for pets, as well as stray animals to reduce the problem of unwanted puppies/pets, which often end up as discarded strays. They may also be in a position to help financially – most shelters rely on donations for finance. f) I believe that everyone needs to help to get basic care for animals. Poisoning is a big problem and there is a need to educate people against using poison to deter animals. If there is a problem animal they should ring the shelter or authorities to take the animal away. In addition, people who own dogs need to be told they must clean up after their dogs and stop their dogs barking excessively so as [not] to be a nuisance. g) Since the Orthodox Church is teaching us that we should care about all living organisms, then the suffering of animals should be priority for the Church. h) They are part of God’s creation. i) I won’t comment on figures as we can be identified. I won’t comment on the Church for they can cause you trouble. In the past when we have had dealings with them they try to get us closed down. j) Why the deaths of so many hunting dogs, why the poisoning of so many cats. Perhaps the Church could try to educate people. k) The Church should be concerned with the suffering of humans and animals, something sadly missing in Cyprus. l) If the Church preaches that animals have no soul, what hope is there? The Church should be promoting goodness to all living things. m) With most of the cruelty done by Cypriots the church should look to themselves to educate their people. n) I understand the Church here teaches animals have no souls and do not suffer, they also claim there are no animals in the bible. Excuse me but how did Mary, Joseph and the three wise men get to Bethlehem then?

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

353

Q.2. In your opinion, is the suffering of animals, something the Orthodox Church is concerned with? Replies: No = 85.7%; Yes = 7%; Don’t know = 7%. Comments: a) Many times, local priests have been asked to speak out against animal cruelty and guide people into being kind and responsible owners but to no avail. They ignore the whole subject of animals and their welfare. b) One of Cyprus main animal rights champion’s son was killed in a motorbike accident. At the funeral as per the family wishes, a table was set up for donations to his mother’s animal sanctuary. Two ladies from the Church pulled down the table and insisted any money collected must go to the Church. It made the local paper and upset the family and mourners. c) There is the [Church building], which is famous for being the place where cats were first introduced to Cyprus to kill the snakes. The nuns neglect these cats; they aren’t neutered, given medical attention and only fed on scraps, if anything. We often get complaints from visitors that have visited the monastery. d) We form our opinions through experience and by seeing how things happen and are allowed to happen. In our experience the Orthodox Church does not show its followers that it cares about the animals who share our world as it allows cruelty and neglect to happen every day in full view of the Church and its ministers. e) They don’t care. f) The Orthodox Church is not passing the message to respect animals and help them when in need. They do this for other human beings, but not for animals or nature (to respect nature). g) Isn’t a country viewed on how it treats its animals? h) The Orthodox Church in Cyprus does not support economically or in any other way animal welfare organisations from my experience. i) They don’t speak about the cruelty to animals, poisoning and don’t help organisations like us. j) No comment. k) Where are the collecting tins in the Church or the cats living in the Church?

354

Appendix A

Q.3. The Orthodox Church, both in its liturgy and in its teachings, views creation as belonging to God. Would you say these ‘teachings’ are reflected in what you know of the Orthodox Church? Replies: Yes = 7%; No = 50%; Don’t know = 36%; No answer = 7%. Comments: a) If people were aware of these teachings then surely, they would take more care with the things that ‘belong’ to God, honour them and take care of them properly. b) The Orthodox Church outrightly claims that although humans and animals are created by God, animals do not have souls and therefore we should not be concerned with soulless things. c) All animals are created and belong to God. d) Not concerning animals or Turks. e) They don’t act to help animals. f) Church do nothing for the animals in Cyprus. g) No comment. h) I can’t comment usefully on this question as I am not a member of this Church. i) I really don’t know much about the Orthodox Church but what I hear and read about people’s experience in Cyprus it is clear the Church care little for humankind. They seem to know nothing about living in the modern world and just create fear in their followers. Q.4. Does the Orthodox Church give your organisation any form of assistance? Replies: No = 93%; No answer = 7%. Comments: a) When land is needed for shelters for abandoned or abused animals, they would never help and even try to block applications for building. b) We have been unable to gain any assistance in the area we are based from either the Church or the municipality. Stray and injured animals are not permitted to remain on Church property and they do not help our organisation to improve their [animals] existence. c) I do not know if the Church gives any assistance to any of the bodies, I am involved with.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

355

d) Not as far as I know but I’m a volunteer at a dog shelter for a relatively short time, so difficult for me to know. I am not aware that our welfare charity has ever approached the Church for assistance. f) [x] does not receive any funding or other forms of assistance from the Orthodox Church. g) They don’t. h) I never asked for assistance from the Church, so I don’t know if they would give it. Q.5. Do you believe the Orthodox Church is supportive of this policy? [No kill] Replies: Yes = 43%; No = 50%; No answer = 7%. Comments: a) Priests are known to poison cats and dogs in a number of villages. b) The Church doesn’t care about animals or their suffering at the hands of humans so why would they be supportive of a no kill policy. c) They should be because we operate as family protection, take animals from those who are arrested, divorced, dying, going into homes and we also help to keep the roads clean and free of disease. d) Probably yes. As I said before animals have no soul so why should they care. e) As I was told by an elderly lady adopter that the (Orthodox) Church forbids neutering, I cannot imagine the Church would condone euthanizing strays. f) As we gain no help from the Church, we cannot be aware of whether they support this policy or not. Q.6. Do you believe the Orthodox Church is supportive of this policy? [Neutering] Replies: Yes = 29%; No = 14%; Don’t know = 50%; No answer =7%. Comments: a) The Church is contradictive, on the one hand, it asserts that animals do not possess souls but on the other, they claim it is a sin to interfere with God’s creation. b) It is not a problem and poison is cheaper. Animals have no souls and cats are needed to keep down snakes. They must be doing a good

356

Appendix A

job as no reports of snakes in Limassol town center amongst all concrete. c) They do say we shouldn’t interfere with nature, so maybe not. d) I don’t really know but would imagine they wouldn’t be supportive. e) They don’t believe in human birth control, let alone animal birth control. f) As we gain no help from the Church, we cannot be aware of whether they support this policy or not. g) Am British and not a Greek Orthodox. Q.7. Has your organisation ever had direct dealings with the Orthodox Church? Replies: No = 71%; Yes = 29%. Comments: a) By a written request for the Church to take a stand on the animal welfare subject. b) We have tried to gain agreement to feed feral cats in the Church grounds, neutering and treating them for parasites and diseases but the Church would not agree to the requests. We have been involved with the feral cat population living at [Church building] where they did assist in moving the cats away from the café area and allowing them to be re-sited on other Church land. c) It has not been good so we think it best not to say. d) No comment because they cause you big trouble – try to shut you down, with planning and with police. e) I am not Orthodox or a member of any Church. f) As above. I am English not Greek Orthodox. g) Due to language difficulties. Q.8. Does your organisation have a relationship with the Orthodox Church in Cyprus? Replies: No = 100% Q.9. Would your organisation like to improve its relationship with the Orthodox Church? Replies: Yes = 50%; No = 14%; No answer = 29%; No answer = 7. Q.10. Please suggest how this improvement might be achieved. Comments:

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

357

a) They could meet with us to see if we could find ways to cooperate to stop cruelty to animals. b) If the Church shows it cared for animals and took action against priests who were cruel to animals. c) The Church has to review and revise their outlook on animals. d) By educating people about animal welfare and changing their views. e) They could help all animal groups by speaking out on cruelty and suffering of animals being wrong. f) Help could take many forms but particularly I suspect in help with finding/donating/allowing use of pieces of land not used in other ways to construct suitable shelters in various parts of the island. Also, financial help would always be appreciated since most shelters as far as I’m informed do not receive any funding from government sources other than a token few thousand euros once a year [between all the organisations but this has now stopped] this is no more than a drop in the ocean. g) Give us Church land for 99-year lease in the Famagusta region so we can build a cat sanctuary. We need 5,000 sq. mtrs please. Prefer Deryneia but Paralimni would suffice but near the farming agricultural areas where it’s more in keeping. Seriously…this is how the o. c. can make a big impact, after all, do they not represent the master creator of all living things??? h) Don’t know. We would need a volunteer to take on a role as relationship manager in order to consider how we might take on this task. Q.11. If you have any suggestion as to how the Orthodox Church could help you in your work, please write them here. Comments: a) They could help all animal groups by speaking out on cruelty and suffering of animals being wrong. b) Animal societies try to stop suffering, so the Church could say something about this. c) At [Q] 40 above. Help could take many forms but particularly I suspect in help with finding/donating/allowing use of pieces of land not used in other ways to construct suitable shelters in various parts of the island. Also, financial help would always be appreciated since most shelters as far as I’m informed do not receive any funding from government sources other than a token few thousand

Appendix A

358

d) e) f)

g)

h) i) j) k) l)

euros once a year [between all the organisations but this has now stopped] this is no more than a drop in the ocean. If the Church shows it cared for animals and took action against priests who were cruel to animals. By educating people about animal welfare and changing their views. I am an individual within several groups. It is the groups that need to be helped and not me as an individual. If the Orthodox Church preaches that animals have no souls and do not feel pain, I have great objection. If they wish to preach no souls, that is a religious thing and I will not go against any particular religion for that but as to not feeling pain that is wrong and is probably why so many animals are mistreated. The Church could show its congregation that animals matter by having an animal blessing day once a year in Church. This way it would also show that animals are not unclean and therefore as part of God’s creation, they should be allowed in his house. Orthodox Church should promote further animal welfare issues, either by funding such organisations or by helping to raise awareness. Ask them to explain how wrong poisoning is and the risk they run to poisoning a small child who might pick up poisoned meat laid for cats and dogs. Don’t know. We would need a volunteer to take on a role as relationship manager in order to consider how we might take on this task. See [Q] 40 above. By educating people about animal welfare and changing their views. Help us with the cost of food and vets’ bills. Educate some priests to become vets or sponsor some to come to Cyprus.

Q.12. If you have any suggestions as to how Orthodox teachings relating to the welfare of animals might be more widely known and understood, please write them here. Comments: a) I don’t know of any Orthodox teaching relating to the welfare of animals or animals in general. b) Environment day is celebrated in the Church – this would be a good time to educate the people to be kind, to look after their animals. c) Educate their priests and congregations. d) In Cyprus especially, we are told that the Orthodox Church teaches people that because animals do not have souls then they cannot feel

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

359

pain and cannot ‘suffer’ like humans. If this is not true then the Church needs to publicize what it really believes. e) As outlined previously. the majority of people on the island either Cypriot or non-Cypriot are good to their animals. Sometimes it is more lack of knowledge and understanding of the needs of animals that causes neglect rather than outright cruelty. Poisoning on the other hand when deliberate is cruel and torturous. f) If you own a dog, don’t simply let it out to defecate all around the neighbourhood, or to risk being run over. A dog or a cat does not need to breed to enjoy life, think about trying to find homes for all the puppies and kittens irresponsible pet ownership causes. g) Cyprus sells itself as a holiday destination, the highway from and to Larnaca airport is littered with dog carcasses every day. On a recent journey from Limassol to Nicosia, I counted 5 dead dogs and 3 cats all hit by cars.

2) Documentary Evidence 2 a) “Mother’s Letter.” Hi

Christine,

Sorry to be so late but I am just so pushed for time that I hardly have any time now to sit and do other things that interest me. I have answered the unanswered questions and there is only a letter I have which was written to the local priest after my son's funeral and also the article in the papers in both Greek and English, which highlights the priest behaviour on the day of the funeral. With an outburst in front of a full Church with people that he will not allow tables to be set up outside the Church for donations to animals clearly left a message that the Church does not support animal welfare but also undermined the important work that our organisation does in the field of animal welfare. This, I find totally unacceptable and I had written to the Archbishop of Larnaca but of course, never received a reply. And this is the attitude of the Church, they never reply to questions put to them about animals and what their position is on the subject. I would be happy to share these documents with you and could email them if you like. Regards Stella

360

Appendix A

Fig. A-1 “Mother’s Letter.”

2 b) “Reader’s letter: Editor’s Choice.”

Fig. A-2 “Reader’s letter: Editor’s Choice.”

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

2 c) “Holy Insult.”

361

362

Fig. A-3 “Holy Insult.”

Appendix A

APPENDIX B RESEARCH IMPACT & PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This work intends not merely to stimulate academic debate but also to provide practical material in order to facilitate that change and education. Information on some of the impact of this research together with an outline of a Seminary Module and Masters Dissertation are provided together with a framework for an Orthodox Church Animal Protection Society. Content: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

Background. Holy Synod of Cyprus Letter to the C. V. A. C. V. A. Public Statement. Public Message by Bishop Isaias on the Establishment of the Department for the Protection of the Natural Environment and the Animal Kingdom. Outline of a Master’s Dissertation. Outline of an Eastern Orthodox Seminary Project. Outline of an Eastern Orthodox Church Animal Protection Group. Eastern Orthodox Animal Charity: Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals.

364

Appendix B

a) Background This research and particularly the Cyprus Case Study have facilitated engagement on the subject of animal suffering by a priest and two hierarchs of the Orthodox Church who offered interviews in order to address and clarify some of the problems highlighted in the 2011-2013 research. This in turn led to further engagement by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware at an international conference on religion and animal welfare at Oxford in 2014; a further interview with the Metropolitan by the organizers of this conference, part of which is on YouTube 1 and an academic paper by the Metropolitan based on the presentation at the Oxford conference. My meetings with Bishop Isaias resulted in him meeting with leading animal protectionists on the island, during which the Bishop made a request for a formal letter from the C.V.A. outlining the problems in Cyprus. Bishop Isaias presented this letter to the Holy Synod in Cyprus where discussions took place, which led in turn, to a formal letter of response by the Holy Synod of Cyprus. This declaration clearly stated that cruelty and abuse to animals is of concern to the Orthodox Church in Cyprus. It also notified the protectionists of the Holy Synod’s intention to inform their parishioners of the proper care for animals in a forthcoming statement. After our interview, Bishop Isaias requested frameworks for a Master’s Dissertation and seminary module on environmental and animal ethics. One of his priests has since written a Master’s dissertation on the theme.2 He also requested an outline for an Eastern Orthodox Animal Protection group, which is now established. I also facilitated a meeting between Bishop Isaias and BirdLife Cyprus 3 during which he stated that the practice of hunting other than for food is a sin. In a further meeting, Bishop Isaias states that if alternatives to animal experimentation exist, they should be used.

 1

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=met.+kallistos+ware+2014&page =2. 2 In Greek, submitted, under review and unpublished. 3 This organisation is a member of BirdLife International.

Research Impact & Practical Applications

365

b) “Holy Synod of Cyprus Statement to the C.V.A.”

Fig. B-1 “Holy Synod of Cyprus Statement to C. V. A.”

Translation: Roughly translated this states that the letter from the C. V. A. was read to the Holy Synod of Cyprus and that it has agreed to remind Orthodox Christians in Cyprus of the correct human behaviour towards animals.

Appendix B

366

c) “C. V. A. Public Statement.” Announcement Church of Cyprus and Animal Cruelty On July 27, 2014, C. V. A. President Mary Anastasi, Secretary Stella Stylianou and spokesman Mr. Dinos Agiomammitis, visited Bishop Isaiah at the Bishopric of Tamasou and Pera Orinis. Accompanying us was Christine Nellist who arranged the meeting and who has been striving for animal welfare and animal rights for many years. Fearing the possible reluctance of the Church to tackle matters concerning animal welfare, a subject that is not popular and many times unpleasant, we were doubtful that this visit would prove otherwise. It was indeed a great and pleasant surprise to hear Bishop Isaiah’s affirmation that animals are part of God’s creation and their welfare secured. We left the meeting with the best impressions and hopes that the Church will finally embrace animals. On the advice of Bishop Isaiah, we wrote a letter to the Holy Synod, explaining the current situation and asking the Church to address the people on the subject of animal cruelty. On September 24, 2014, we received a letter from the Holy Synod, dated September 15, 2014, pledging that the Church of Cyprus will remind its Christian followers, the proper way of treating animals! This news is indeed a historic step in the right direction and one that we have all been striving to achieve. We believe that the involvement of the Church in matters of animal welfare will bring desired changes in attitudes and to unorthodox practices. We await with excitement to hear the so longawaited announcement. We would like to thank Bishop Isaiah for his most warm welcome and of course his positive views regarding animals and their welfare as well as his eagerness to present this subject to the Holy Synod. Of course, we wholeheartedly thank Christine Nellist for her persistence with the Church as well as her oratorical guidance of the clerics. CYPRUS VOICE FOR ANIMALS Fig. B-2 “C. V. A. Public Statement.”

Research Impact & Practical Applications

d) “Public Message by Bishop Isaias” ǻǾȂǿȅȊȇīǿǹ ȉȂǾȂǹȉȅȈ īǿǹ ȉǾȃ ȆȇȅȈȉǹȈǿǹ ȉȅȊ ĭȊȈǿȀȅȊ ȆǼȇǿǺǹȁȁȅȃȉȅȈ Ȁǹǿ ȉȅȊ ǽȍǿȀȅȊ ǺǹȈǿȁǼǿȅȊȈȉǾȃ ǿǼȇǹ ȂǾȉȇȅȆȅȁǾ ȉǹȂǹȈȅȊ Ȁǹǿ ȅȇǼǿȃǾȈ Ȃİ ʌȠȜȜȒ ĮȖȦȞȓĮ țĮȚ șȜȓȥȘ ʌĮȡĮțȠȜȠȣșȠȪȝİ IJȘȞ ȠıȘȝȑȡĮȚ ĮȣȟĮȞȩȝİȞȘ țĮțȒ İțȝİIJȐȜȜİȣıȘ țĮȚ İʌȚįİȚȞȠȪȝİȞȘ țĮIJĮıIJȡȠijȒ IJȠȣ ijȣıȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ, IJȦȞ ʌȠIJĮȝȫȞ, IJȦȞ șĮȜĮııȫȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ țȐșİ ȜȠȖȒȢ ȗȫȦȞ. ǿįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ, ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ ȑȟĮȡıȘ ıIJȘȞ țĮșȘȝİȡȚȞȒ ȗȦȒ, ıİ ȩIJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȘȞ țĮțȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȗȫȦȞ. ȉĮ ĮțȡĮȓĮ țĮȚȡȚțȐ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞĮ, Ș IJȡȪʌĮ IJȠȣ ȩȗȠȞIJȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮIJȝȩıijĮȚȡĮ, Ș ȣʌİȡșȑȡȝĮȞıȘ IJȠȣ ʌȜĮȞȒIJȘ ȝĮȢ, Ș ĮȜȩȖȚıIJȘ İțȝİIJȐȜȜİȣıȘ IJȠȣ ijȣıȚțȠȪ ʌȜȠȪIJȠȣ IJȘȢ ȖȘȢ, Ș ȝȩȜȣȞıȘ IJȠȣ ȞİȡȠȪ, Ș İțȝİIJȐȜȜİȣıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ Įʌȩ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ, Ș țĮțȠȝİIJĮȤİȓȡȚıȘ IJȠȣ ȗȦȚțȠȪ țȩıȝȠȣ țĮȚ ȐȜȜĮ, ıȣȞșȑIJȠȣȞ IJĮ IJȡĮȖȚțȐ ʌĮȡĮțȠȜȠȣșȒȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡȐȤȡȘıȘȢ IJȠȪ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJĮ ȤȫȡȠȣ Įʌȩ ȝȑȡȠȣȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ıİ ȩȜĮ IJĮ ȝȑȡȘ IJȘȢ ȖȘȢ. Ǿ įȚĮIJȐȡĮȟȘ IJȘȢ ijȣıȚțȒȢ IJȐȟȘȢ țĮȚ ĮȡȝȠȞȓĮȢ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ İʌȒȜșİ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠʌĮIJȠȡȚțȒ ĮıIJȠȤȓĮ, ıIJȚȢ ȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ĮȞȘıȣȤȘIJȚțȑȢ įȚĮıIJȐıİȚȢ ȝİ ĮʌȡȩȕȜİʌIJİȢ ıȣȞȑʌİȚİȢ. «਺ țIJȓıȘȢ ıȣıIJİȞȐȗİȚ țĮȓ ıȣȞȦįȓȞİȚ» (ȇȦȝ. Șǯ 22), ȑȞİțĮ IJȘȢ ĮȞİȡȝȐIJȚıIJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ĮʌȜȘıIJȓĮȢ. ǻȚțĮȚȠȜȠȖȘȝȑȞĮ, ȅȡȖĮȞȚıȝȠȓ, ȆİȡȚȕĮȜȜȠȞIJȚțȐ, ĭȚȜȠȗȦȚțȐ ȀȚȞȒȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ ȐȜȜȠȚ ijȠȡİȓȢ įȚĮȝĮȡIJȪȡȠȞIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȐ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞ, țĮȚ țȡȠȪȠȣȞ IJȠȞ țȫįȦȞĮ IJȠȣ țȚȞįȪȞȠȣ. ǻȣıIJȣȤȫȢ, ȝȑȤȡȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ȠȚ ijȦȞȑȢ ȖȚĮ ʌȡȠıIJĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ ȠȜȓȖȠȞ Ȓ țĮșȩȜȠȣ įİȞ ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ ȣʌȩȥȘ. Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮȞȑțĮșİȞ țĮȜİȓ IJȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ ȞĮ ıȑȕİIJĮȚ țĮȚ ȞĮ ĮȟȚȠʌȠȚİȓ ȝİ ıȪȞİıȘ IJȠȣȢ ijȣıȚțȠȪȢ ʌȩȡȠȣȢ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ʌȓıIJȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ĮʌȠȡȡȑİȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓ țȠıȝȠȖȠȞȓĮȢ șİȩʌȞİȣıIJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȘȢ, ȩIJȚ țȠȚȞȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ țĮIJĮıIJȡȠijȒ IJȠȣ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ įİȞ șĮ ʌȜȒȟȠȣȞ ȝȩȞȠ ȝİȡȚțȠȪȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȩȜȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȠȞ țĮșȑȞĮ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȐ. ǵʌȦȢ țĮȚ IJȠ țȑȡįȠȢ, Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠȡșȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȤȡȒıȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȖȐʌȘ IJȠȣ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ, șĮ İʌȚȝİȡȚıșİȓ, ĮȞȐȜȠȖĮ, ıİ ȩȜȠȣȢ țĮȚ ıIJȠȞ țĮșȑȞĮ ȝĮȢ. Ǿ ǿİȡȐ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȚȢ ȉĮȝĮıȠȪ țĮȚ ȅȡİȚȞȒȢ țĮȜİȓ IJĮ ʌȚıIJȐ ȝȑȜȘ IJȘȢ ȞĮ ıȑȕȠȞIJĮȚ, ȞĮ ĮȖĮʌȠȪȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ ĮʌȠȕĮȓȞȠȣȞ ȠȚ ijȪȜĮțİȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ ʌȡȠıIJȐIJİȢ IJȠȣ ijȣıȚțȠȪ țĮȚ ȗȦȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ, țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ țĮȜȫȢ ȞȠȠȪȝİȞȠ ıȣȝijȑȡȠȞ IJȠȣȢ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȖȚĮIJȓ IJȠȪIJȠ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ țĮȚ İȞIJȠȜȒ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ȠȡȖĮȞȫȞİȚ ȉȝȒȝĮ ʌȡȠıIJĮıȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ijȣıȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȗȦȚțȠȪ ȕĮıȚȜİȓȠȣ, ȖȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ įȚȠȡȓȗİȚ İȟİȚįȚțİȣȝȑȞȠ țȜȘȡȚțȩ țĮȚ

367

Appendix B

368

ıȪȞIJȠȝĮ ȟİțȚȞȠȪȞ ıİȝȚȞȐȡȚĮ İʌȚȝȩȡijȦıȘȢ țȜȘȡȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ıIJİȜİȤȫȞ țĮȚ șĮ įȚȠȡȖĮȞȫȞȠȞIJĮȚ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJİȢ țĮȚ ȘȝİȡȓįİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıIJĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ijȣıȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȗȦȚțȠȪ ȕĮıȚȜİȓȠȣ. ȉ.Ĭ. 12123, 2341 ȁĮțĮIJȐȝȚĮ, ȀȪʌȡȠȢ, ȉȘȜ. 22465465, ĭĮȟ 22624600 Email: [email protected] Fig. B-3. “Public Message by Bishop Isaias.”

Roughly translated as: INTRODUCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE ANIMAL KINGDOM AT THE HOLY METROPOLIS OF TAMASOU AND ORINIS It is with great anguish and grief that we observed up until today the increasing ill-treatment and continuous abuse of the natural environment, the rivers, the seas and the different kinds of animals that live therein. Especially during the last years, we note an unwelcomed increase as far as the ill-treatment of animals is concerned. The extreme weather phenomena, the hole in the ozone layer, the increase in temperature, the inconsiderate exploitation of the natural resources, the ill-treatment of the animals and many others, are actions that compose the tragic abuse of the environment from the humans all over the world. The disturbing of the natural order and harmony, originally resulting from the failure of our forefathers in Eden, is achieving worrying proportions with unknown consequences. “The whole created universe in all its parts groans as if in the pangs of childbirth” (Romans 8.22), because of the unending human greed. It is justified that we should hear the protestations and efforts by several Environmental and Animal Welfare/Protection organisations, to alert the world about the dangers of our behaviour as far as our treatment of animals and the environment is concerned. Unfortunately, until today these cries of desperation are not heard as much as should be. The Church has always called for people to respect the natural resources and to use them with prudence. The Church’s belief emanates from its inspirational ‘cosmic’ teachings that the environment belongs to everybody and its destruction will affect all people as a unit and each one separately. Accordingly, any profit from the rational use and love showed to the environment will be shared to all.

Research Impact & Practical Applications

369

The Holy Metropolis of Tamasos and Orinis calls its members to respect, to love and become guardians and protectors of the natural and animal environment, not only because it is a Divine commandment, but also for their own benefit. This is why it is introducing a Department responsible for the protection of the natural environment and the animal kingdom; appointing a specialist priest as a coordinator of its actions and is planning seminars for the education of its clergy and other officers as well as organised activities and discussions to promote the protection of the natural environment and the animal kingdom. 4

e) Outline of a Master’s Dissertation 5 Hypothesis: The early Church (and contemporary) Fathers through their writings and lives, offer humans a model for loving and compassionate relationships with and thus treatment of animals. Aim and Objectives: To synthesize these teachings in order to develop an Orthodox position for the ethical treatment of animals and the environment. This dissertation would be included as source material in a proposal to the Holy Synod for modules on the ethical treatment of animals and the environment to be included in the syllabi of seminaries. Method: I would recommend the students investigate and compare the syllabi of the Orthodox seminaries. It is predicted that they will find an absence of teachings on the ethical treatment of animals or the environment. However, if modules are found, they can be incorporated into the dissertation and used for critical analysis. Students are to examine biblical, patristic, ecclesial and contemporary teachings, which identify the qualities/virtues of Christ. This Image is to be used as a framework/guidance for compassionate relationships with and treatment of animals and the environment.

 4

I am grateful to Fr. Stephanos for his translation. One of Bishop Isaias’s priests has since written a dissertation entitled Ǿ ȝİIJĮȤİȓȡȚıȘ IJȠȣ ȗȦȚțȠȪ ȕĮıȚȜİȓȠȣ țĮȚ Ș ȤȡȒıȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ has adapted this framework. Roughly translated as The Treatment of the Animal Kingdom and the use of the Creation in the Orthodox Church. Unpublished.

5

Appendix B

370

Suggested Themes: Icon of Christ; The Role of the Priest A. Icon of Christ 1) Examine biblical, liturgical, canonical and other ecclesial texts. 2) Examine patristic teachings from St. Athanasius; St. Basil: St. Cyril of Jerusalem; St. Gregory of Nyssa; St. Irenaeus; St. Isaac the Syrian; St. Maximus; St. Symeon the New Theologian; (etc.) 3) Examine the various hagiographies of the saints. 4) Examine contemporary Orthodox literature e.g. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew; Bishop Isaias of Tamasos, Cyprus; Metropolitan John of Pergamon; Metropolitan; Kallistos of Diokleia; Fr. John Chryssavgis. B. The Role of the Priest 1) Identify ways for priests to widen their parishioners’ knowledge on Church teachings in order to develop compassionate and caring relationships with animals and the wider environment e.g. via homilies; blessings for animals on the commemorative days of saints traditionally connected with animals e.g. St. Modestos, St. Mamas and the day of the Environment; World Earth Day etc. 2) Examine contemporary teachings on animal souls, which promote the teaching that the status of animal souls is irrelevant to how animals should be treated. It is suggested that as animals are part of God’s creation they ought to be treated with love, compassion and respect. Examine how this teaching can be incorporated into contemporary Church literature. (Chapters Five, Six and Seven of this work) 3) Examine H. A. H. Bartholomew’s teachings that we should extend the concept of community, justice, rights and mercy to animals. Suggest how they could be incorporated into contemporary Church literature and practice. Bibliography: Originally, a short list of Primary and Secondary sources was listed as a starting point for the student. As my book is now complete, it would seem appropriate to use this more extensive bibliography.

Research Impact & Practical Applications

371

f) Outline of an Eastern Orthodox Seminary Project Suggested Title: Protecting God’s Non-Human Creation Suggested Objectives: 1) To develop the seminarians’ understanding of their role as Icon of Christ in relation to their treatment and relationship with animals and the environment. 2) To develop an understanding of the spiritual and ontological interconnectedness of God’s creation. 3) To promote the teaching that the status of animal souls has nothing to do with how animals should be treated 4) To examine the role of animal protection, conservation and environmental agencies and how their aims and objectives can be applied in the priests’ parish. 5) To help the seminarians reduce or prevent the suffering of animals within their parish by increasing their knowledge of animal welfare/protection and environmental conservation practises. Suggested Methods: 1) By examining biblical; patristic; canonical; ecclesial and contemporary texts and teachings as outlined in the Master’s Project/my book, we can demonstrate how the seminarians’ compassionate treatment of animals and the environment are positive reflections of God’s love, care and compassion for His creation. 2) Using the same texts, we evidence the sacredness and interconnectedness of God’s creation. 3) A practical element to this course is essential. There should be visits to animal sanctuary/rescue centres and experts from various protection/conservation agencies should be invited to give lectures on animal suffering themes. Having visited one or two sanctuaries, the seminarians would have first-hand experience of what an animal shelter does, resulting in more relevant questions for the AW lectures/seminars, than would otherwise be the case. This could be repeated for environmental NGOs/agencies. Because of the practical experience it is suggested that the seminarians would be better able to identify animal welfare and environmental problems/issues within their parishes, i.e. abandonment; poisoning;

Appendix B

372

neutering; illegal hunting and over-hunting; pollution and habitat loss. 4) The seminarians are to produce plans of how they would educate their parishioners via homilies, blessings, prayers; contact with animal welfare/protection and environmental groups in their areas. Suggested Assignments: 1) A 3000-word paper on both of the following themes: a) Reflecting God’s love and compassion in our relationships and treatment of animals. b) An ethical approach on the use of animals and the environment. 2) Two 15-minute homilies promoting: a) The ethical treatment of animals. b) The ethical treatment of the environment. Self-funding Suggestions: 1) Collate the homilies into a book, which can be used for priests throughout their country and sold abroad to help fund the course.

g) Outline of an Eastern Orthodox Church Animal Protection Group 6 Proposed Title: The Eastern Orthodox Church Group for the Promotion of Animal Welfare Proposed Administrative Structure: Chair: Bishop Secretary: Revolving. Treasurer: Revolving. Suggested Aims and Objectives: To provide education for Schools, Churches and the Public.

 6

One group now exists in Cyprus and has run a small conference on responsible ownership, see article on the panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org website.

Research Impact & Practical Applications

373

To clarify and promote Church teaching on the ethical treatment of animals which will include: 1) Dominion rightly interpreted does not mean domination but a reflection of the Image of God, who extends His love, mercy and compassion to animals. 2) Teach the interconnection of all creatures to each other and to God (Spiritual and ontological) 3) As animals belong to God, they should be treated with love, kindness, compassion and respect. 4) The status of animal souls has nothing to do with how animals should be treated. They should be treated with love, compassion and respect. 5) Define the inherent evil and sin in the abuse and misuse of animals, e.g.: cruelty; abuse; neglect; abandonment; poisoning; killing for pleasure rather than for food; breaking animal protecting laws e.g. illegal hunting, mist-nets, lime-sticks. 6) Teach the soteriological implications of sins against animals. 7) Teach responsible ownership and treatment of animals, including the need for neutering. 8) Promote the adopting of animals from shelters, which both helps the animal protection agencies and reduces the demand for animals from breeders. Schools Theme: Responsible Ownership and Treatment of Animals Proposed Method: Provide materials (look online) and give talks to schools. Projects such as poetry/art competitions on themes relating to animal welfare/ conservation are warmly welcomed. Include the following points: 1) Daily provision of appropriate and adequate food and clean water. 2) Daily exercise for animals is important for their health and wellbeing. 3) Animals should have shelter from heat, cold and rain. 4) It is wrong/illegal to have animals chained/tied all day. (Check national laws.)

Appendix B

374

5) Regular worming, flea/tick treatment and inoculations are essential to the good health of animals. 6) Animals also need regular grooming, nail clipping and ear cleaning. 7) Neutering for both sexes is encouraged for the health of the animals and because it significantly reduces the numbers of unwanted and abandoned animals. 8) Abandonment of animals is both unethical and illegal. (Check national laws.) Priests and Church. Theme: to Promote Church Teachings on Man’s Responsibility to Animals Proposed Method: 1) Work with the Church to promote seminary and in-service training on God’s love, care and compassion for animals. 2) Work with priests to promote their role as Image of God who reflect God’s love, mercy and compassion for animals in their lives and teachings. 3) Provide support for the priests and define days for animal blessing services to be held for example on days celebrating saints such as St. Athanasius; St. John Chrysostom; St. Gerasimos; St. Irenaeus; St. Isaac, St. Mamas, St Modestos, etc. and on the Day of the Environment; World Animal Day, etc. Public. Theme: Responsible Ownership. Proposed Method: 1) Use materials that are available online from animal welfare, protection, conservation and environmental groups. 2) Give talks to groups (Christian and Secular) on how to be responsible owners of companion or farmed animals. 3) Use the teachings outlined for schools/priest and take care to emphasise that the status of an animal’s soul is irrelevant to the way it should be treated, which is with love and respect.

Research Impact & Practical Applications

375

h) Eastern Orthodox Animal Charity: Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals This organisation was established in 2017 as a registered charity. 7 The Mission Statement is as follows: Our Mission is the advancement of Christian respect and responsibility for the animal creation with special reference to Eastern Orthodox teachings – ancient and modern, in order to reduce the suffering of animals. Our aim is to promote Christ’s loving compassionate care for all of His creatures and to advance the patristic teachings that we as Image are to replicate Christ’s love and compassion for all of His created beings. We also aim to inform our readers that this subject has been discussed both in the Bible and by the early Church Fathers. It will also disseminate news/articles/interviews on compassionate care and relationships with animals from across the Orthodox world, together with articles and research on a wide range of contemporary animal issues.

 7

See the website at panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org. Charity Commission number 1175072.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 447-99. The Complete Works of Aeschylus. Hastings, E. Sussex: Delphi Publishing Ltd. Kindle, 2013. Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke. 2nd ed. California: Centre for Traditional Orthodox Studies, 2003. Anastasius of Sinai, Joie de la transfiguration: D’après les Pères d’Orient. Spiritualité Orientale, n. 39, edited by D. M. Coune. Bégrolles-en-Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1985. —. Recite, X, OC. II 66. Andrew of Crete, On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies, edited by B. E. Daley. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1998. Apuleius, Metamorphosis 4.13-14. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Westbourne Ltd, 1928. —. Summa Contra Gentiles, Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Aeterna Press. Kindle, 2015. —. Summa Theologica, Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Westbourne Ltd, 1929. Aristotle, History of Animals, trans. A. L. Peck. Loeb Classical Library, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk: St. Edmundsbury Press Ltd, 1970. —. Politics: A Treatise on Government. Complete Works of Aristotle. Hastings, E. Sussex: Delphi Publishing Ltd. Kindle, 2013. —. The History of Animals. O.I.A Press. Kindle, 2015. —. The Nicomachean Ethics, 8: 1161 a-b, trans. D. Ross. Oxford: OUP, 1991. Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Heathen, CANNPNF 2-04. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. Contra Gentiles and De Incarnatione. Edited and translated by R. W. Thompson. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1971. —. On the Incarnation of the Word, trans. J. Behr. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2011. —. The Life of Antony, trans. C. White. Early Christian Lives, London: Penguin Books, 1998.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

377

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 200f-201c. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Augustine. Augustine: Early Writings, Vol VI. Edited by J. Burleigh. The Library of Christian Classics: S.C.M. Press, 1953. —. The City of God Against the Pagans, 1:20, trans. R. Dyson. Cambridge: CUP, 1998. Augustus, Res Gestae, 22. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Basil of Seleucia, On Social Justice, trans. P. Schroeder. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2009. —. The Hexaemeron, CANNPNF 2-08. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2009. —. Third Homily on Pascha, SC 187. http://www.sourceschretiennes.mom.fr/index.php?pageid=volume_par u&id=155&longueursource=50&trisource=auteur_anciens&selection2 source=203&sourcepg=volumes_parus. Caesar, Gallic War 4.1; 6.21-2. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Cassius Dio, Roman History 39.38, 51.22, 73.18, 77.1, (epitome) 66.25, 68.15, 78.10. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Cassian, J, On The Eight Vices: Anger. In Philokalia: The Complete Text, Vol 1:85. Translated by Palmer, G. E. H. Sherrard, P., and K. Ware. London: Faber and Faber, 1979. Cicero, Letters to His Friends 2.2.2; 7.1.2-3. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis. 4.26, trans. J. Ferguson. Washington. DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1991. —. Exhortation to the Heathen, CANNPNF 02. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. Peadagogus 1.2, CANNPNF 02. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. Climacus, J, Ladder of Divine Ascent, PG 88: 624-1208.

378

Bibliography

Cyril of Alexandria, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament. Book III, Luke. Edited by A. A. Just Jr. and T. Oden. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2003. —. Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke, trans. R. Payne Smith. Long Island, NY: Studion Publishers, Inc, 1983. —. Lettres Festales (I-VI) SC 372. Cyril of Jerusalem, The Catechetical Homilies of St Cyril Archbishop of Jerusalem. Edited by D. M. Kalogeraki. Orthodox Missionary Fraternity of Thessaloniki, 2011. Diadochos of Photiki, On Spiritual Knowledge 89, B#22. In Philokalia: The Complete Text, Vol 1:288, trans. Palmer, G. E. H. Sherrard, P., and K. Ware. London: Faber and Faber, 1979. Dorotheus of Gaza, Discourses and Sayings, trans. E. Wheeler. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1977. Ephrem the Syrian, Discourse On the Passion of the Saviour by Our Venerable Father Ephrem the Syrian. https://web.archive.org/web/ 20160305063629/http:/anastasis.org.uk/http://. —. Homily On Our Lord. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3706.htm. —. Hymns for the Feast of Epiphany, CANNPNF 2-13. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. Hymns of St Ephrem the Syrian, trans. M. Hansbury. Convent of the Incarnation Fairacres, Oxford: SLG Press, 2006. —. Hymns On Paradise, trans. S. Brock. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1990. —. On the Beatitudes: Fifty-Five Chapters. https://web.archive.org/web/ 20160305063629/http:/anastasis.org.uk/. —. Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh, CANNPNF 213. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. Sermon in Heptasyllablics: Three Short Discourses; Discourses of Exhortation to the Monks of Egypt, trans. E. Lash. https://web.archive.org/web/20160305063629/http:/anastasis.org.uk/. —. The Harp of the Spirit: Eighteen Poems of Saint Ephrem. In Studies Supplementary to Sobornost No. 4. Oxford: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1983. —. The Pearl-Seven Hymns On The Faith, CANNPNF 2-13. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. Three Homilies: On Admonition and Repentance, CANNPNF 2:13. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. Three Short Discourse-On Love. http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/ spir_stephraim_love.shtml. Festal Menaion. Edited by Mary, Mother and K. Ware. London: Faber & Faber, 1998.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

379

George of Choziba, Journeying into God: Seven Early Monastic Lives, trans. T. Vivian. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996. Greek Anthology, 7.626. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen de vita sua II, II, V. 303-308 (37, 1050) In Baur, C. John Chrysostom and his time Vol. 1, Pt. 1, “Antioch: The Early Years.” Translated by Sr. M. Gonzaga. Buchervertriebsanstalt Posttach 461, FL-9490 Vaduz, Europa, 1958. http://www.reu.org/ public/ chrysos/life.txt. —. Orations 45.8. Edited by H. Bettenson. The Later Christian Fathers. NY: OUP, 1970. —. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Sometime Archbishop of Constantinople, CANNPNF 2-07. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. St. Gregory Nazianzen: Selected Poems. 4th ed. Translated by J. McGuckin. Oxford: Sisters of the Love of God Press, 2005. Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism VI. CANNPNF 2-05. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings. Edited by H. Musurillo. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1979. —. On the Love of the Poor, trans. S. Holman The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia, Oxford: OUP, 2001. Gregory Palamas, Topics of Natural and Theological Science and on the Moral and Ascetic Life: One Hundred and Fifty Texts. In Philokalia: The Complete Text. Vol IV: 346-417. Translated by Palmer, G. E. H. Sherrard, P. and K. Ware. London: Faber and Faber, 1995. Hippolytus, On the Apostolic Tradition. Edited by A. Stewart-Sykes. Popular Patristic Series, Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2001. —. Refutations of all Heresies, 1. 3. 2-3. trans. Rev. J. Macmahon. Ohio: Beloved Publishing, 2016. Irenaeus of Lyon, Irenaeus: Against Heresies. Vols 1-5. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Reprints, 2004. —. The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. In Stevenson, J. ed. Frend, W. H. C. rev. ed. A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the History of the Church to Ad 337. London: SPCK, 1987. —. Valentinus, Animal and Spiritual Men. In Stevenson, J. ed. Frend, W. H. C. rev. ed. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337. London: SPCK, 1987. Isaac the Syrian, Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian) The Second Part, Ch. IV-XLI Syr. 224. CSCO, trans. S. Brock. Leuven: Peeters, 1995.

380

Bibliography

—. Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh, trans. A. J. Wensinck. Amsterdam, Kindle, 1923. —. The Ascetic Homilies of St Isaac the Syrian. Edited by D. Miller. Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1984. Chrysostom, J, Against the Games and Theatres. Mayer, W. and P. Allen, Oxon: Routledge, 2000. —. De sacerdotio 6, 6-7 (48, 682-83). In, C. Baur, John Chrysostom and his time Vol One, Part One, “Antioch: The Early Years” trans. Sr. M. Gonzaga. Buchervertriebsanstalt Posttach 461, FL-9490 Vaduz: Europa, 1958. http://www.reu.org/public/chrysos/life.txt. —. Homilies on Genesis 1-17, Vol. 74, trans. R. C. Hill. The Fathers of the Church, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1986. —. Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Vol. 82, trans. R. C Hill. The Fathers of the Church, Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990. —. Homily XXXIX on Matthew XII, 3.1 B#54. In Manley, J. ed. The Bible and the Fathers for Orthodox: Daily Scripture Readings and Commentary for Orthodox Christians. Monastery Books, Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1990. —. On Repentance and Almsgiving 10.5, trans. G. G. Christo. The Fathers of the Church Vol 96, Washington: DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998. —. On Romans, xxix. In Attwood, D. St. John Chrysostom: Pastor and Preacher. London: The Catholic Book Club, 1959. —. On Wealth and Poverty, trans. C. Roth. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1984. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, CANNPNF 2-09. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. —. Writings, trans. F. H. Chase, Jr. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1958. Joseph the Hesychast, Letter 57, In Expression of Monastic Experience, Holy Mountain: Holy Monastery of Philotheou, 1992: 315, cited in Theokritoff, E. “Creation and Salvation in Orthodox Worship.” Journal of Religion, Nature & the Environment Vol. 5.10: 97-108 (Jan 2001). Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, CANNPNF 01. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. Leontius of Cyprus, Fifth Homily of Christian Apologetics against the Jews and on the Icons. PG 93:1604B. Leviticus Rabbah, Midrash on Leviticus, In Linzey. A. and D. CohnSherbok, eds. After Noah: Animals and the Liberation of Theology. London: Mowbray, 1997.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

381

Maximus the Confessor, Ad. Thalassium 17 On Spiritual Progress in Virtue, trans. Blowers, P. and R. Wilken, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Selected Writings from St. Maximus the Confessor. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2003. —. Ambiguum 7, On the Beginning and End of Rational Creatures, trans. Blowers, P., and R. Wilken, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Selected Writings from St. Maximus the Confessor. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2003. —. Ambiguum 41 PG 91. 1305B. —. On First Principles 1.3.6 GCS 22:57. —. On Prayer (De Oration) 24:2 GCS 3:354. —. Scholia on the Divine Names PG 4. 353B. Mikron Evchologion eds. Vaporis, N. M. Von Holzhausen, J. and M. Gelsinger. N & T Publications, 1985. Mikron Evchologion i Agiasmatarion. Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens, 1984. Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament, 27th ed. Aland, B. Karavidopoulos, K. J. Martini, C. M and B.M. Metzger, eds. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgeselleschaft, 1998. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series. Edited by Schaff, P., and H. Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, 1994. Numbers Rabbah, Midrash on Numbers. In Linzey, A. and D. CohnSherbok, After Noah: Animals and the Liberation of Theology London: Mowbray, 1997. Origen, Against Celsus (Kata Kelsou) CANNPNF 04. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. Ovid, Fasti 4.681-712. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Philokalia: The Complete Text, Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St Makarios of Corinth. Vols 1-IV. Translated by Palmer, G. E. H. Sherrard, P., and K. Ware. London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 1979-95. Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus: The Armenian Text. Introduction, translation and commentary by A. Terian. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Plato, Protagoras 320c-322b. The Complete Works of Plato, trans. B. Jowlett, Kindle, 2013. Pliney the Elder, Natural History 8.6-8; 8.20, 24-25. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Plutarch, Essays and Miscellanies: The Complete Works of Plutarch, Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Reprints.

382

Bibliography

Polybius, Histories. 30.25. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Pope Francis. Laudato Si’. LS: 67, 68, 117. http://w2.vatican.va/content/ vatican/ en.html. Pythagoras in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Bk 15. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Strabo, Geography 2.5.33. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Suetonius, Titus 7. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. In Linzey, A., and D. Cohn-Sherbok, After Noah: Animals and the Liberation of Theology. London: Mowbray, 1997. The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox: Daily Scripture Readings and Commentary for Orthodox Christians. Edited by J. Manley. Monastery Books, Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1990. The Early Christian Fathers: A selection from the writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St Athanasius. Translated & edited by H, Bettenson. Oxford: OUP, 1969. The Great Book of Needs, Vol. 3. South Canaan, PA: St Tikhon's Seminary Press, 2002. The Lenton Triodion, trans. Mother Mary and K. Ware. London: Faber & Faber, 1978. The Northern Thebaid: Monastic Saints of the Russian North. Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1975. The Old Testament Hebrew and English Bible. The British & Foreign Bible Society, Berlin, SW: Trowitzsch & Son, 1903. The Rudder, (Pedalion) Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain with St Makarios of Corinth, trans. D. Cummings. Chicago: Orthodox Christian Education Society, 1957. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Canons XXIV, L & LI, Council of Trullo. Edited by Schaff, P., and H. Wace. CANNPNF 2-14. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle, 2014. Theodore the Studite, Catechesis 6, 50, 52. https://web.archive.org/web/ 20160305063629/http:/anastasis.org.uk/.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

383

Theophylact, Archbishop of Ochrid & Bulgaria. The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of The Holy Gospel According to Matthew, trans. C. Stade. House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 2009. Xenophon, On Hunting, 11.1-4. In Harden, A. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Secondary Sources Aaltola, E. Animal Suffering: Philosophy and Culture. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012. Allen, C. and M. Bekoff. Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/ journals/atla/index.html American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 1994. Appleby, J. “Animal Sentience in US Farming.” In Animals Ethics and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience, eds. J. Turner and J. D’Silva, 159-165. London: Earthscan, 2007. Arseniev, N. Russian Piety, trans. A. Moorhouse. London: The Faith Press Ltd, 1964. Arluke, A. Levin, J. Luke, C., and F. Ascione. “The Relationship of Animal Abuse to Violence and other forms of Antisocial Behaviour.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14, (1999): 963-975. Ascione, F. R. “The Abuse of Animals and Human Interpersonal Violence: Making the Connection.” In Child Abuse, Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention, eds. F. Ascione and P. Arkow, 50-61. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1999. —. Examining Children’s Exposure to Violence in the Context of Animal Abuse.” In The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence, ed. A. Linzey, 106-115. Brighton, Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2009. —. ed. The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research and Application. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2008. Ayres, L. Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Bailey, J. and K. Taylor. “Non-human Primates in Neuroscience Research: The Case Against its Scientific Necessity.” ATLA 44, (2016): 43-69.

384

Bibliography

Baldry, A. C. “Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home.” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 15: 97-110. Bartholomew 1, (Archontonis) (Ecumenical Patriarch) “A Changeless Faith for a Changing World.” Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., November 3rd, 2009. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 346-54. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. A Collective Responsibility.” Extract from Tagbladet, April 2002. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 357-365. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “A Rich Heritage.” Address at the Environmental Symposium, Santa Barbara Greek Orthodox Church, Santa Barbara, CA. 8th Nov, 1997. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 190. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “A Sea at Risk, A Unity of Purpose.” Fourth International and interreligious symposium on the Adriatic Sea, June 6th 2002. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 270-273. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Address before the Twelfth Ordinary General Assembly of the Roman Catholic Synod of Bishops.” The Vatican, 18th Oct 2008. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 275-284. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. “Address by His All-Holiness at the Synaxis of Patriarchs of the Ancient Patriarchate and the Archbishop of Cyprus.” 1st Sept, 2011. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “Address by His All-Holiness at the World Partner Forum” Istanbul, 6th May, 2011. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “Address by His All Holiness during the Presentation Ceremony of the Sophie Prize.” June 12, 2002. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 282-285. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Address by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the Scholars.” Meeting at the Phanar, 5th January 2016. https://www.patriarchate.org/-/address-by-his-all-holiness-ecumenicalpatriarch-bartholomew-to-the-scholars-meeting-at-the-phanar-january5-2016-.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

385

—. “Amazon: Source of Life.” Opening Address of RSE Symposium VI, 14th July 2006. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “An Award For The Past.” Toast given in New York, November 13th, 2000. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 256-261. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Blessings Gained and Lessons Learned.” Closing address at Symposium VI, Narsaruaq, Greenland, Sep. 12th, 2007. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 341-3. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Caretaker of the Environment” 30th June, 2004. http://www.ecpatr.org. —. “Creation care and ecological justice: Reflections by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.” The Oxford Union, 4th November 2015. https://www.patriarchate.org/-/creation-care-and-ecologicaljustice-reflections-by-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew. —. “Christmas Encyclical” 1994. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 126-7. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Christmas Encyclical” 2014. Prot. No. 1377. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “Climate Change.” In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 348351. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics.” Common Declaration of John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Bartholomew I, 10th June, 2002. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “Creator and Creation.” Address at the opening of the Black Sea symposium (2nd Int. Sym.) 20th Sep, 1997. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 174-178. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Discerning God’s Presence in the World.” Fordham University, NY, 27th Oct, 2009. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 341-346. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. “Education and Parish Action.” In, Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 109-112. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009.

386

Bibliography

—. “Encounter and Dialogue.” In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 346-348. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today: His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday. 2008. —. “Environment and Ethics.” Halki, June 12th, 1995. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 135-7. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Environment and Justice.” The welcome address at the opening of the fourth summer seminar on Halki. June 25th, 1997. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 170-173. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Environment and Religious Education.” Greetings at the opening of the first summer seminar on Halki, 20th June 1994. In, Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 109-112. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Exhortations to Clergy and Faithful of the Ecumenical Throne” 29th Aug, 1998. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 137. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. “Foretaste of the Resurrection.” Holy Pascha, 2006. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 40-41. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. “Hunger and Poverty.” Interview on Greek radio Sky 100.4, April 9th 1999. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 371-2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. Joint Message on the World Day of Prayer for Creation from the Vatican and from the Phanar.” 1st September 2017. https://www.patriarchate.org/-/joint-message-on-the-world-day-ofprayer-for-creation. —. “Justice: Environmental and Human.” 1997. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 173. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

387

—. “Keynote Address by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the Arctic Circle Assembly.” Reykjavik, October 13, 2017. https://www.patriarchate.org/-/keynote-address-by-his-all-holinessecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-at-the-arctic-circle-assemblyreykjavik-october-13-2017-. —. “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation” 1st September 2001. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 55-57. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation.” https://www.patriarchate.org/-/septon-patriarchikon-menyma-epi-teihemerai-proseuches-hyper-tes-prostasias-tou-physikou-periballontos01-09-2013. —. “Message for Orthodoxy and the Environment.” Kavala, Greece, 7th Sept, 1993. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 378-9. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Message for the Day of the Environment.” 1994. In, Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 42-45. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Message from Ecumenical Patriarchate” 12th Oct, 2008. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 407-408. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. “Message of His All Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, for the day of prayer for the protection of the Environment” 1st Sept, 2015. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “Message of His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, on the Day of the Protection of the Environment” 1997. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 49-50. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Message of His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on the Day of the Protection of the Environment.” 2011. Prot No 758. http://www.ec-patr.org.

388

Bibliography

—. “Message of the Primates.” In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 88-93. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Message of the Synaxis of Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” 1st Sep, 1998. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 200-2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Moral Dilemmas of Globalisation.” Address Given by Bartholomew at the 1999 Annual Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum. http://www.patriarchate.org/other-ecumenical-documents? —. “On the Theological and Spiritual Insights of Pope John Paul II” Nov. 30th, 2005. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 294-298. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. “Prefatory Letter.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. Chryssavgis J., and B. V. Foltz, xi-xii. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. —. “Religion and Conservation.” Address at the Summit on Religions and Natural Conservation held in Atami, Japan, April 5th, 1995. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 139-40. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Sacrifice: The Missing Dimension.” Adriatic Sea symposium, 10th June 2002. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 275. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Saints and the World.” Message on the occasion of Earth Day, June 1997. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 380-1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Saving the Soul of the Planet.” Address at the Brookings Institution. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “Saving Souls and the Planet Go Together.” 2010. Available at: http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “Sins Against Nature and God: We Are All Accountable for Ignoring the Global Consequences of Environmental Exploitation.” Statement by His All Holiness at the Ecumenical Patriarchate Constantinople 9th May, 2010. http://www.ec-patr.org.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

389

—. “Sins before our Eyes: A Forum on Modern Slavery.” Opening Address By His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Istanbul, 7th February 2017. https://www.patriarchate.org/-/sins-before-our-eyes-opening-addressby-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew. —. “The Aegean Symposium.” 1995. http://www.rsesymposia.org?more.php?pcatid=50&catid=88. —. “The Ascetic Corrective.” Keynote address of North Sea symposium at Utstein Monastery, June 23rd 2003. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 295-299. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “The Ascetic Way.” Proclamation for Great Lent, 2001. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 89-91. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. “The Immorality of Indifference.” Homily in Helsinki, 6th June 2003. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 290. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “The Orthodox Church and the Environment.” Based on an interview in, Reflections vol. 93. 2. (June, 2007). Divinity School of Yale University. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 359. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “The Role Religion in a changing Europe.” London School of Economics 3rd Nov, 2005. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “The Sacredness of Fish.” North Sea Symposium June 24th, 2003. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 300-1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “The Wonder of Creation, Religion and Ecology.” In Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today, 89-92. NY: Doubleday, 2008. —. “Thine Own, From Thine Own.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2006. In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 326330. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Youth before the Third Millennium.” Millennial Youth Conference, 18th June 2000. In Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, 168-172. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011.

390

Bibliography

Behr, J. The Nicene Faith, 2 Vols. New York: SVSP, 2004-2005. Bernstein, M. H. “Responding Ethically to Animal Abuse.” In The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence, ed. A. Linzey, 184-189. Brighton, Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2009. Birch, C, W Eakin and J. B. McDaniel, eds. Liberating Life: Contemporary Approaches to Ecological Theology Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990. Bloom, A. Coming Closer to Christ: on Confession London: SPEC, 2009. —. Encounter: Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, trans. T, Wolff. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2005. Boff, L, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, trans. P. Berryman. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1995a. Boff, L., and V. Elizondo, eds. Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm, trans. J. Cumming. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995b. Boff, L., and V. Elizondo, eds. Ecology and Poverty: Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. (Concilium) Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995c. Bonhoeffer, D, Ethics, ed. E. Bethge. Translated by N, Horton Smith. London & NY: SCM Press, 1978. Bordeianu, R, “Maximus and Ecology: The Relevance of Maximus the Confessor’s Theology of Creation for the Present Ecological Crisis.” Downside Review 127, (2009):103-126. Bouteneff, P, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008. Breck, J., and L. Breck, Stages on Life's Way: Orthodox Thinking on Bioethics. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2005. Brock, S, “Animals and Humans: Some Perspectives from an Eastern Christian Tradition.” Journal of Animal Ethics 6 (1): 1-9. —. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World of Saint Ephrem the Syrian Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1992. —. The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1987. Broom, D, “Indicators of Poor Welfare.” British Veterinary Journal 142, (1986): 524-526. Broom, D., and A. Fraser, Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. NY: CABI Publishing, 1997. Broom, D. M., and K. G. Johnson, Stress and Animal Welfare. Springer Science & Business Media, 1993. Bulgakov, S, The Lamb of God, trans. B. Jakim. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

391

Butler, M. and A. Morriss, Creation and the Heart of Man: An Orthodox Christian Perspective on Environmentalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Acton Institute, 2013. Buttel, F. and W. Flinn, “The Structure and Support for the Environmental Movement: From Recreation to Politics.” Pacific Sociological Review 14, (1974):270-87. Carone, G. R, “The Classical Greek Tradition.” In A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, ed. D. Jamieson. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470751664.ch5. Chadwick, H, The Church In Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great. Oxford: OUP, 2009. Chitty, D. J, The Desert A City. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1995. Chryssavgis, J. “A New Heaven and a New Earth: Orthodox Christian Insights from Theology, Spirituality, and the Sacraments.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation edited by Chryssavgis, J. and B. V. Foltz, 152-162. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. —. “A New Heaven and a New Earth: Orthodox Theology and an Ecological World View.” The Ecumenical Review 62, no 2, (2010):214-22. —. “A Tribute to Phillip Sherrard.” Colloquium 88 (1):7. —. ed. Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Environment and Spirituality: Transforming Perspectives and Practices.” The Hellenic Times International, 6, (Winter 2013-4):2227. —. Fire and Light: Aspects of the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Minneapolis MN: Light and Life Publications, 1987. —. “God’s Earth is Sacred: An Open Letter to Church and Society in the United States”, 2005. http://www/nccusa.org/news.14.02.05theologicalstatement.html. —. “In the Heart of the Desert: The Spirituality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers, with a translation of Abba Zosimas’ Reflections. Treasures of the World’s Religions, Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom Inc, 2008. —. ed. In the World, Yet Not of the World: Social and Global Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. NY: Fordham University Press. 2010. —. John Climacus: From the Egyptian Desert to the Sinaite Mountain. London: Ashgate, 2004.

392

Bibliography

—. ed. On Earth as in Heaven: Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. NY: Fordham University Press. 2012a. —. Repentance and Confession Boston, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1990. —. Speaking the Truth in Love: Theological and Spiritual Exhortations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. NY: Fordham University Press, 2011. —. trans. The Reflections of Abba Zosimas monk of the Palestine Desert. Fairacres, Oxford: SLG Press, 2004. —. The Way of the Fathers: Exploring the Mind of the Church Fathers, Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 2003. —. “The Word of the Icon and Creation: An Orthodox Perspective on Ecology and Pneumatology.” In Seeing God Everywhere: Essays on Nature and the Sacred, ed. B. McDonald, 253-268. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2003. Chryssavgis, J., and B. V. Foltz, eds. Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Chryssavgis, J., and P. R. Penkett, eds. In the Footsteps of Christ: The Ascetic Teaching of Abba Isaiah of Scetis, Oxford: SLG Press, 2001. Clément, O, “ Les animaux dans la pensée orthodox.” Contacts 145 (1989): 24-44. Clough, D, “Why Are Churches Negative About Animals?” The Ark, No. 231, (Autumn/Winter 2015): 37-40. Clough, P. and C. Nutbrown, eds. A Student’s guide to Methodology: Justifying Enquiry. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage publications, 2007. Cochrane, A, An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Cohen, J, Tsa’ar Ba’ale Hayim: The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. NY: Feldheim Publishers, 1976. Cohn, P. N., and A. Linzey, “Hunting as a Morally Suspect Activity.” In The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence, ed. A. Linzey, 317-328. Brighton, Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2009. Currey, C. L, “Animal Cruelty by Children Exposed to Domestic Violence.” Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006): 425-435. Cyprus Voice for Animals, Newsletter Issue 2, Nov 2011. http://www.cva.org.cy. Daley, B. E, ed. Gregory of Nazianzus. The Early Church Fathers, London: Routledge, 2006.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

393

Deane. H. A, The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine. NY: Columbia University Press, 1963. Deane-Drummond, C. and D. Clough, eds. Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals. London: SCM Press, 2009. DeGue and DiLillo, “Is Animal Cruelty A ‘Red Flag’ for Family Violence? Investigating Co-Occurring Violence Toward Children, Partners and Pets.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24 (2009): 10361056. Demitrios 1, Ecumenical Patriarch, “Message on Environmental Protection Day” 1989. http://www.ec-patr.org. —. “Orthodoxy and the Ecological Crisis.” Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature International, 1990. Demetropoulos, P, Orthodoxos Christianike ethike. Athens, 1970. [Orthodox Christian Ethics.] Donaldson, S., and W. Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. New York: OUP, 2011. Douglas, M, Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: OUP, 2001. Duncan, I, “Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry: Is There a Lesson to Be Learned.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4:3:207-21. Economou, E, “An Orthodox View of the Ecological Crisis.” Theologia 61 (4): 607-619. —. “Orthodoxy and Ecology.” Ecclesia (5):188-192; (6):231-234; (7):280-283; 8:223-326. Edwards, M, “On the Platonic Schooling of Justin Martyr.” Journal of Theological Studies (New Series) 42 (1991):17-34. Eleftheriou, B. E, Encyclopedia of the Major Saints and Fathers of the Orthodox Church Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life Publishing, 2000. Eliade, M, A History of Religious Ideas: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries, trans. W. R. Trask. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/topic/ancient-Egyptian-religion/The-Gods. Englhardt Jr, H. T, “Ecology, Morality and the Challenge of the TwentyFirst Century: The Earth in the Hands of the Sons of Noah.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, edited by Chryssavgis, J. & B. V. Foltz. 276-290. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Fairholme, E. G, W. Pain, M. L. B. Lambourne, & Edward Duke of Windsor, A Century of Work for Animals: The History of the RSPCA, 1824-1924. John Murray, 1924.

394

Bibliography

Farrer, A, Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited Fontana Library of Theology and Philosophy: Collins Fontana, 1962. Farwell-Brown, A, The Book of Saints and Friendly Beasts Houghton, Miffin and Co, Boston & NY: Kindle, 1900. Florensky, P, Salt of the Earth. Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1987. —. The Pillar and Ground of Truth, trans. B. Jakim. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997. Florovsky, G, Creation and Redemption. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1976. Flynn, C. P, “Animal Abuse in Childhood and Later Support for Interpersonal Violence in Families.” Society and Animals 7 (1999):161-172. —. “Why Family Professionals Can No Longer Ignore Violence Toward Animals.” Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 49 (2000): 87-95. —. “Women-Battering, Pet Abuse and Human-Animal Relationships.” In The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence, ed. A. Linzey, 116-125. Brighton, Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2009. Flynn, C. P., and R. Austin, “Traversing the gap between Religion and Animal Rights: Framing and Networks as a Conceptual Bridge.” Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (2):144-158. Francis, Pope, Laudato Si. 24th May 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papaf rancesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html. Fraser, D, Understanding Animal Welfare Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. George, K. M, “Toward a Eucharistic Ecology: An Orthodox perspective.” The Reformed Journal (April 1990): 17-22. Godlee, F, “How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research?” British Medical Journal 348 (2014):3719. Godlovitch, S. Godlovitch, R., and J. Harris, eds. Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-Humans. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1971. Goricheva, T, The Burning Bush, Springfield, IL: Templegate, 1976 Graham, D. W, The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: CUP, 2010. Grant, R. M, Irenaeus of Lyons. Early Church Fathers, London: Routledge, 1997. Greek, C. and J. Greek, Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals. New York: Continuum, 2000.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

395

Gregorios, P. M, “Christology and Creation.” In Animals & Christianity: A Book of Readings, eds. Linzey, A. and T. Regan, 25-28. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2007. —. The Human Presence: An Orthodox View of Nature. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. Gregory, N. G. and L. J. Wilkins, “Broken Bones in Domestic Fowl: Handling and Processing Damage in End-of-Lay Battery Hens.” British Poultry Science 30 (1989): 555-562. Griniezakis, M, “Introduction to Bioethics: A Brief Summary.” http://www.halifaxgreeks.ca/INTRODUCTION%20_TO_BIOETHICS .pdf. Grisbrooke, W. J, ed. The Spiritual Counsels of Father John of Kronstadt: Select Passages from My Life in Christ. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1981. Gross, A, “Jewish Animal Ethics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality, eds. Dorff. E. and J. Crane, Ch. 6. Oxford: OUP, 2016. Gschwandtner, K, “Orthodox Ecological Theology: Bartholomew I and Orthodox Contributions to the Ecological Debate.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 10 (2-3): 130-143. —. The Role of Non-Human Creation in the Liturgical Feasts of the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: Towards an Orthodox Ecological Theology. 2012. Durham E-Theses. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4424. Gullone, E, Animal Cruelty, Antisocial Behaviour and Aggression: More than a Link. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012. Guerra, N. G. Huesmann, L. R., and A. Spindle, “Community Violence Exposure, Social Cognition and Aggression among Urban Elementary School Children.” Child Development 74 (2003):1561-1576. Guroian, V, “"Cleansers of the Whole Earth": The Ecological Spirituality of the Armenian Church.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 36. (34): 263-276. —. “Fr. Stanley Harakas: Introductory Comments.” Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics 18 (1998): 15-17. —. “Notes toward an Eastern Orthodox Ethic.” Journal of Religious Ethics 9 (2): 228-244. —. “Toward Ecology as an Ecclesial Event: Orthodox Theology and Ecological Ethics.” Communio 18 (1991): 89-110. Hallman, D. G, ed. EcoTheology: Voices from South and North Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994. Hamalis, P, “The Theological-Ethical Contributions of Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) to Environmental Issues.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment,

396

Bibliography

Nature and Creation, edited by Chryssavgis, J. and B. V. Foltz, 121130. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Hamalis, P. T., and A. Papanikolaou, “Toward a Godly Mode of Being: Virtue as Embodied Deification.” Studies in Christian Ethics 26 (3): 271-80. Hapgood, I. F, trans. Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church. 4th ed. Brooklyn: Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, 1965. Harakas, S, “Bioethics in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.” https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacstranscripts-and-maps/eastern-orthodox-christianity-bioethics. —. “Do Pets Go To Heaven?” 25th Feb 2015. https://myocn.net/pets-goheaven —. “Ecological Reflections on Contemporary Orthodox Thought in Greece.” Epiphany Journal 10 (3): 46-61. —. “For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics,” 1985. https://www.goarch.org/-/for-the-health-of-bodyand-soul-an-eastern-orthodox-introduction-to-bioethics. —. “The Integrity of Creation: Ethical Issues.” In, Justice Peace and the Integrity of Creation: Insights from Orthodoxy, edited by L. Gennadios, 70-82. Geneva: WCC, 1990b. —. The Orthodox Christian Tradition: Religious Beliefs and Healthcare Decisions. Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith and Ethics, 1999. Harden, A, Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspective from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Harmless, W, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Hauerwass, S, Truthfulness and Tragedy. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Heath, J, The talking Greeks: speech, animals and the other in Homer, Aeschylus and Plato. Cambridge: CUP, 2005. Heckscher, J. J, “A ‘Tradition’ That Never Existed: Orthodox Christianity and the Failure of environmental History.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, edited by Chryssavgis, J. and B. V. Foltz, 136151. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Hoffman, P, “St Thomas Aquinas on the halfway State of Sensible Being.” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 99 (Jan 1990): 73-92.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

397

Holman, S. R, The Hungry Are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia Oxford: OUP, 2001. Horn, C, Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine: The Career of Peter the Iberian. Oxford: OUP, 2006. Hoyt, J. A, Animals in Peril: How ‘Sustainable Use’ is Wiping Out the World’s Wildlife. NY: Avery Publishing Group, 1994. Ioannikios, Archimandrite, An Athonite Gerontikon; Sayings of the Holy Fathers of Mount Athos, trans. Mayson, M. D. and Sister Theodora (Zion) Thessaloniki: Kouphalia, 1997. Jackman, J., and A. Rowan, Free-Roaming Dogs in Developing Countries: The Benefits of Capture, Neuter, and Return Programs. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/1_CNVR%2 0Jackman%20and%20Rowan%20%282%29.pdf. Jamison, W. V., and W. M. Lunch, “Rights of Animals, Perceptions of Science, and Political Activism: Profile of American Animal Rights Activists.” Science Technology Human Values Vol 17, No 4 (October 1992): 438-458. Jerolmack, C, “Tracing the Profile of Animal Rights Supporters: A Preliminary Investigation.” Society and Animals 11.3: 245-263. Julian, R, “Evaluating the Impact of Metabolic disorders on the Welfare of Broilers.” In Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare, eds. Weeks, C., and A. Butterworth, 51-59. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 2004. Just Jr, A. A., and T. Oden, eds. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament – III Luke. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2003. Kahneman, D, Thinking, Fast and Slow. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Kean, H, Animal rights: Political and social change in Britain since 1800. London: Reaktion Books, 1998. Kelly, J. N. D, Early Christian Doctrines. 3rd ed. Harlow: Longman, 1977. Keselopoulos, A. G, Man and the Environment: A Study of St. Symeon the New Theologian, trans. E. Theokritoff. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2001. —. “The Prophetic Charisma in Pastoral Theology: Asceticism, Fasting and the Ecological Crisis.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. Chryssavgis J., and B. V. Foltz, 356-364. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Khalil, I. J. “For the Transfiguration of Nature: Ecology and Theology.” Epiphany Journal 10 (3):19-36. —. “The Ecological Crisis: An Eastern Christian Perspective.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly. 22 (4): 193-211.

398

Bibliography

Klager, A. P, "Retaining and Reclaiming the Divine: Identification and the Recapitulation of Peace in St. Irenaeus of Lyons' Atonement Narrative." In Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ, eds. Jersak, B., and M. Hardin, 422-480. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Knight, A, “Animal Agriculture and Climate Change.” In The Global Guide to Animal Protection, ed. A. Linzey, 254-256. Urbana, Chicago and Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2013. —. The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011. Knight, C. C, “Natural Theology and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition.” In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, 3rd ed. Edited by Hedley Brooke, J. Manning, R. R., and F. Watts. 2017. Laboratory Animals. Sage Journal, Publications. http://journals.sagepub.com/home/lan. LaFollete, H., and N. Shanks. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. London: Routledge, 1996. Lang, D. M, trans. Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1956. Lansbury, C, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers & Vivisection in Edwardian England. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Lash, Archimandrite Ephrem, “Biblical interpretation in worship.” In The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, eds. Cunningham, M. B., and E. Theokritoff, 35-48. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. Lawrence, G, trans. A Study of Gregory Palamas. Bedfordshire: The Faith Press, 1964. Lederer, Se. E, “Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War.” (The Henry E. Sigerist Series in the History of Medicine). Maryland: The John Hopkins Uni. Press, 1997. Leney, J., and J. Remfry, “Dog population management.” In Dogs, Zoonosis and Public Health, eds. Macpherson, C. Meslin, F., and A. Wandeler, 299-332. NY: CABI Publishing, 2000. Lewis, C. S. “A Case for Abolition.” In Christianity and Animals: A Book of Readings, eds. Linzey, A. and T. Regan, 160-164. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1990. —. The Problem of Pain. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1940. Lewis, C. S., and C. E. M. Joad, “The Pains of Animals.” The Month 3. (2) (Feb 1950).

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

399

Li, C, “A Union of Christianity, Humanity and Philanthropy: The Christian tradition and the prevention of cruelty to animals in nineteenth century England.” Society and Animals Journal 8 (3): 266285. Lichter, R., and S. Rothman, “What Interests the Public and What Interests the Public Interests.” Public Opinion 6 (April/May 1983): 44-48. Limouris, G, ed. Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation: Insights from Orthodoxy. Geneva: WCC, 1990. Linzey, A. Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment. London: SCM Press, 1976. —. Animal Rites: Liturgies of Animal Care, London: SCM Press, 1999. —. Animal Theology London: SCM Press, 1994. —. “Animals and the Churches: A Case of Theological Neglect.” Reviews in Religion and Theology, no. 3, (summer 1995): 3-7. —. Creatures of the Same God: Explorations in Animal Theology Winchester: Winchester University Press, 2007. —. “Cruelty to Animals is as if a Man did not Love God.” The Ark: Journal of Catholic Concern for Animals. 220 (Spring 2012): 5. —. ed. The Global Guide to Animal Protection. Urbena, Chicago and Springield: University of Illinois Press, 2013. —. ed. The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2009a. —. Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics Oxford & NY: OUP, 2009b. Linzey, A., and D. Cohn-Sherbok. After Noah: Animals and Liberation Theology London: Mowbray, 1997. Linzey. A., and C. Linzey, The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 2017. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/57527 Linzey, A., and T. Regan, eds. Animals and Christianity: A Book of Readings. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007. Lossky, V, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1991. Loudovikos, N, A Eucharistic Ontology: Maximus The Confessor's Eschatological Ontology Of Being As Dialogical Reciprocity, trans. E. Theokritoff. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2010. —. “Eikon and Mimesis: Eucharistic Ecclesiology and the Ecclesial Ontology of Dialogical Reciprocity.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 11 (2-3):123-136. Louth, A. Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology London: SPCK, 2013.

400

Bibliography

—. Maximus the Confessor The Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 1996. —. “Theology of Creation in Orthodoxy.” International Journal of Orthodox Theology 8 (3) 51-76. Low, P. Panksepp, J. Reiss, D. Edelman, D. Van Swinderen, B., and Christof Koch, eds. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012, Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals, at Churchill College, University of Cambridge, by Low, Edelman and Koch. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness. pdf. Lymbery, P, Farmageddon. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. Mantzarides, G, Christian Ethics. Thessalonike: P. Pournaras Publications, 1983. —. Introduction to Ethics: Ethics in the Crisis of the Present and Provocation of the Future. Thessalonike: P. Pournaras Publications, 1988. Marcus, E, Meat Market: Animals, Ethics and Money. Boston: Brio Press, 2005. Mayer, W., and P. Allen, “John Chrysostom.” The Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 2000. McGrade, A. S, “Aristotle’s Place in the History of Natural Rights.” The Review of Metaphysics 49 (4):803-829. McGuckin, J, “The Beauty of the World and Its Significance in St. Gregory the Theologian.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. Chryssavgis, J., and B. V. Foltz, 34-45. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. —. ed. & trans. The Book of Mystical Chapters: Meditation on the Soul’s Ascent, from the Desert Fathers and other early Christian contemplatives. Boston & London: Shambhala Publications, 2002. McLaughlin, R, “Evidencing the Eschaton: Progressive-Transformative Animal Welfare in the Church Fathers.” Modern Theology 27 (1): 121–146. McMullen, S, “Can Economists Speak for Farmed Animals?” Journal of Animal Ethics (Fall) 3.2: 175-181. Mench, J, “Broiler Breeders: Feed Restriction and Welfare.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 58 (2002): 23-9. —. “Farm Animal Welfare in the U. S. A: Farming Practices, Research, Education, Regulation and Assurance Programs.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113.4: 298-312.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

401

Messer, N, “Human, Animals, Evolution and Ends.” In Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals, eds. DeaneDrummond, C. and D. Clough, 211-227. Norwich: SCM Press, 2009. Mikrayiannanites, Monk Gerasimos, “Vespers for the Environment.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. Chryssavgis, J. and B. V Foltz, 379-397. NY: Fordham University Press, 1990. Milgrom, J, Leviticus 1–16. The Anchor Bible Series, NY: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group 1991. —. “The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System.” Interpretation 17 (1963): 288–301. Mitralexis, S, “Maximus’ ‘Logical’ Ontology: An Introduction and Interpretative Approach to Maximus the Confessor’s Notion of the logoi.” Sobornost 37 (1): 65-82. Morison, E. F, St. Basil and his rule: A study in early monasticism, Inspiration of Monastic Life. London: OUP, 1912. Available at: http://archive.org/stream/basilsrule00moriuoft/basilsrule00moriuoft_dj vu.txt. Moss, A. W, Valiant Crusade: The History of the RSPCA. London: Cassell, 1961. Murrey, R, The Cosmic Covenant: Biblical themes of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation. London: Sheed & Ward, 1992. —. “The Ephremic tradition and the theology of the Environment.” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 2.1: 67-82. Nash, R, The Rights of Nature. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. Nellas, P, Deification in Christ: Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person. Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997. Nellist, C. A, “Towards an Animal Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Holy Cross Orthodox Press Volume 61, no. 3-4 (Fall-Winter 2016): 125-140. Nesteruk, A. V, Light from the East: Science, Theology, and Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003. Newmyer, S, Animals in Greek and Roman thought: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 2011. Nibert, D, “Animal Rights and Human Social Issues.” Society and Animals 2 (2): 115-124. Nicolaidis, E. Delli, E. Livanos, N. Tampakis, K., and G. Vlahakis, “Science and Orthodox Christianity: An Overview.” Isis 107, no. 3 (September 2016): 542-566.

402

Bibliography

Nimon, A. J., and D. M. Broom, “The welfare of farmed foxes Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus in relation to housing and management: a review.” Animal Welfare 10 (2001): 223-248. Nimon, A. J., and D. M. Broom, “The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to housing and management: a review.” Animal Welfare 8 (1999): 205-228. Osborn, C, Dumb Beasts & Dead Philosophers: Humanity & the Humane in Ancient Philosophy & Literature. Oxford: OUP, 2007. Owen, D, English Philanthropy, 1660-1960. Oxford: OUP. Page, T, Vivisection Unveiled: An Expose of the Medical Futility of Animal Experimentation. Charlbury, Oxon: Jon Carpenter, 1997. Palfreyman, M. G. Vinod, C., and J. Blander, “The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery.” Drug Discovery World Fall (2002):33-44. http://www.ddw-online.com/2002/p142687fall-2002-edition.html. Papanikolaou, A, “Creation as Communion in Contemporary Orthodox Theology.” In, Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. Chryssavgis, J., and B. V. Foltz, 106-120. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Papavassiliou, V, “The Theology of Genesis.” http://gocas.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid= 39%3Alessons-in-orthodox-faith&id=113%3A280112-the-theologyof-genesis&Itemid=114. Passmore, J, “The Treatment of Animals.” Journal of the History of Ideas.” 36 (1975):195-218. Paulus Mar Gregorius, Cosmic Man: The Divine Presence, International Religious Foundation, Incorporated; New edition, 1998. Pearson, B. A, Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. Minneapolis. MN: Fortress Press, 2007. Pelikan, J, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1 The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1971. —. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Perl, E. D, “Hierarchy and Love in St. Dionysius the Areopagite.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. Chryssavgis, J., and B. V. Foltz, 23-33. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

403

Pound, P., and M. Bracken, “Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research?” British Medical Journal (2014) 348:3387. Preece, R, Sins of the Flesh: A History of Ethical Vegetarian Thought. University of British Columbia Press, 2008. Price, R. M, trans. Lives of the Monks of Palestine Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1991. Ranney, A, Channels of power Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1983. Roberts, H. H, Vegetarian Christian Saints: Mystics, Ascetics and Monks USA: Anjeli Press, 2004. Rollin, B, Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research Issues Iowa State University Press, 1995a. —. The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy. Cambridge: CUP, 1995b. —. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. Oxford: OUP, 1989. Rowan, A, “The Development of the Animal Protection Movement.” Journal of NIH Research 1 (Nov/Dec 1989): 97-100. Rowan, A. N. Loew, F. M., and J. C. Weer. The Animal Research Controversy: Protest, Process, and Public Policy-An Analysis of Strategic Issues. North Grafton, MA: Centre for Animals and Public Policy, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, 1995. Rowland, M, “The Structure of Evil.” In The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence, ed. A. Linzey, 201-205. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2009. Russell, N, trans. The Lives of the Desert Fathers. Oxford. Mowbray & Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1981. Russell, W. M. S., and R. L. Burch, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen, 1959. Sakharov, N. V, I Love Therefore I Am: The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2002. Sakharov, Archimandrite Sophrony, St Silouan the Athonite. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 1991. Santmire, H. P, The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. Santora, G. Berg, C., and J. Lund, “A Comparison Between Leg Problems in Danish and Swedish Broiler Production.” Animal Welfare 12 (2003): 677-83.

404

Bibliography

Schochet, E. J, Animal Life in Jewish Tradition: Attitudes and Relationships NY: KTAV, 1984. Sharma, B. K, “Vivisection: Good New Indian Universities Lead The Way.” The Ark (Spring 2012):29-30. Shemesh, Y, “Vegetarian Ideology in Talmudic Literature and Traditional Biblical Exegesis.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 9 (2006):141-166. Sherrard, P, Human, World Image: The Death and Resurrection of Sacred Cosmology. Ipswich, UK: Golgonooza Press, 1992. —. The Rape of Man and Nature. Ipswich, UK: Golgonooza Press, 1987. Singer, P, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics For Our Treatment of Animals. NY: Avon Books, 1977. Sorabji, R, Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate. London: Duckworth, 1993. Sperling, S, Animal Liberators: Research & Morality. Berkley: University of California Press, 1988. Spiegel, S, The Last Trial on the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah. Translated by J. Goldin. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993 Stamp-Dawkins, M, “Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare.” Ethology 114:10: 937-45. —. “The Scientific Basis of Assessing Suffering in Animals.” In In Defence of Animals: The Second Wave, edited by P. Singer, 26-39. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Staniloae, D, “The World as Gift and Sacrament of God’s Love.” Sobornost 5 (9): 662-673. Stefanatos, J, Animals Sanctified: A Spiritual Journey. Minneapolis: MN, Light & Life Publishing, 2001. Steiner, G, Anthropocentrism and its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005. Stevenson, P, A Far Cry from Noah: The Live Export Trade in Calves, Sheep and Pigs. London: Merlin, 1994. Stewart-Sykes, A, The Lamb’s High Feast: Melito, Peri Pascha and the Quartodeciman Paschal Liturgy at Sardis. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1998. Stokka, G. Smith, J., and J. Dunham, “Lameness in Dairy Cattle.” Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, 1997. H https://www.bookstore.ksre.k.state.edu/Item.aspx?catId=567&pubId=6 72.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

405

Stylios, E. K, Anthrǀpos kai physiko perivallon: historikƝ, philosophikƝ, kai theologikƝ theǀrƝsƝ tou oikologikou provlƝmatos. Athens. 1989. [Man and Natural Environment: A Historical-PhilosophicalTheological Survey of the Ecological Problem.] Swinton, J. & H. Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research London: SCM Press, 2011. Taylor, K., and M. Balls, “Wider Recommendations for Institutions made in the Brown Report Following the BUAV Investigation into the Use of Animals at Imperial College London.” ATLA 42 (5): 335-342. Thaisia, Abbess of Leushino, The Autobiography of a Spiritual Daughter of St John of Kronstadt. Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, 1989. Theokritoff, E, “Creation and Salvation in Orthodox Worship.” Journal of Religion, Nature & the Environment, Vol. 5. 10: 97-108. (Jan 2001) —. Living in God’s Creation: Orthodox Perspectives on Ecology. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2009. Theokritoff, G, “The Cosmology of the Eucharist.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. Chryssavgis, J., and B. V. Foltz, 131-135. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Thiebaux, M, The Stag of Love: The Chase in Medieval Literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974. Tomaševiü, L, “Bioethics from the point of view of the Orthodox (Russian) Church.” Airiti 9 (2015):1-16. Tomkinson, T, trans. Exposition on the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke. 2nd ed. Etna, CA: Centre for Traditional Orthodox Studies, 2003. Thompson, K. L., and E. Gullone, “An Investigation into the Association Between the Witnessing of Animal Abuse and Adolescents’ Behavior Toward Animals.” Society and Animals 14 (2006): 223-243. Tsironi, N, “Liturgy as Re-Enactment in the Light of Eric Kandel’s Theory of Memory.” https://www.academia.edu/7844552. Turner, J, Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain and Humanity in the Victorian Mind, 1980. Turner, J., and J. D’Silva, eds. Animals, Ethics and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience London: Earthscan, 2007. Unti, B, “Cruelty Indivisible: Historical perspectives on the links between cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence.” In The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research and Application, ed. F. R. Ascione. 7-30. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2008.

406

Bibliography

Vachicouras, G, “The Orthodox Church and problems of Bioethics and Ecology.” Seminar on methodologies in approaching social and ethical issues, Morges, Switzerland, 8-12th October 2003. http://www.wcccoe.org/wcc/who/vachicouras.html. Vasileios, Archimandrite, “Ecology and Monasticism.” In Toward Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation, eds. Chryssavgis, J. and B. V. Foltz, 348-355. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013. Verkhovsky, Abbess Vera, Elder Zosima: Hesychast of Siberia. Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1990. Vivian, T, trans. Journeying into God: Seven Early Monastic Lives. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996. —. “The Peaceable Kingdom: Animals as Parables in the Virtues of Saint Macarius.” Anglican Theological Review 85.3 (Summer 2003): 477491. Waddell, H, Beasts and Saints, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Walker, A., and C. Carras, eds. Living Orthodoxy in the Modern World London: SPCK. 1996. Ward, B, The Sayings of the Dessert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection. rev. ed. Kalamazoo. Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1984. Ware, K. (Met. Kallistos), “Ecological Crisis, Ecological Hope: The Orthodox Vision of Creation.” Orthodoxy in America Lecture, Bronx, NY: Fordham University, 2005. http://www.fordham.edu/downloads/file/2078/kallistos_lecture. —. “How To Read The Bible.” In The Orthodox Study Bible. Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1757-1766, 2008. —. “Orthodox Christianity: Compassion for Animals”, in The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics, ed by Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey, Routledge, (forthcoming 2018). —. “Orthodox theology today: trends and tasks.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 12 (2012):2: 105-121. —. “The Soul in Greek Christianity.” In From Soul to Self, ed. James, M., and C. Crabbe, 49-69. London & New York: Routledge, 1999. —. The Value of the Material Creation.” Sobernost 6 (3): 154-165. —. “The Unity of Scripture and Tradition: An Orthodox Approach.” In What is it that Scripture Says? Essays in Biblical Interpretation and Reception in Honour of Henry Wansbrough, ed. P. McCosker, 231246. London: T & T Clarke, 2006. —. “Through the Creation to the Creator” Ecotheology 2. (1997):8-30.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

407

Webster, A. B, “Welfare Implications of Avian Osteoporosis.” Poultry Science 83 (2004):184-92. Weeks, C., and C. Nicol, “Poultry Handling and Transport.” In Livestock Handling and Transport Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 2000. Wegner, P, The Journey From Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academics, 2000. White, L, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Science 155 (3767) (March 1967):1203-1207. Williams, R, Arius: Heresy and Tradition. London: SCM Press, 2001. Wilson, J. A. P, “The life of the Saint and animals Asian Religious Influence in the Medieval Christian West.” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 3.2 (2009):169-194. Wynne, C. D. L, “Do Animals Think?” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Yannaras, C, The Freedom of Morality. Translated by E. Briere. Crestwood: NY: SVSP, 1984. —. “World and Sacrament in the Writings of the Syrian Fathers.” Sobernost 6 (10):685-696. Yarri, D, The Ethics of Animal Experimentation: A Critical Analysis and Constructive Christian Proposal. Oxford: OUP, 2005. Zander, V, St Seraphim of Sarov. London: SPCK, 1975. Zernov, N, The Russians and their Church. 3rd ed. London: SPCK, 1978. Zizioulas, J. D. (Met. John) “A Comment on Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si.” https://www.patriarchate.org/-/a-comment-on-pope-francis-encyclicallaudato-si-. —. “Foreword.” In Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer, Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. J. Chryssavgis, viii. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Man as Priest of Creation: Insights from Metropolitan Anthony’s Thought.” Conference notes from Met Anthony of Sourozh Centenary Conference, “The Glory of God is a Man Fully Alive.” King’s College, London. 15-16th November 2014. —. “Preserving God’s Creation: Three Lectures on Theology and Ecology, Parts 1-3.” King’s Theological Review 12 (Spring 1989):1-5; 12 (Autumn. 1989): 41-45; 13 (Spring 1990):1-5. —. “Proprietor or Priest of Creation?” Keynote Address of the Fifth Symposium of Religion, Science and the Environment, 2nd June 2003. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/MetJohnCreation.php.

408

Bibliography

Interviews Bishop Isaias of Tamassos & Orinis, Cyprus. Interview with Presbytera Christina (Dr. Nellist), 4th March 2014, Cyprus. Butler, M. Interview by Kevin Allen of Ancient Faith Radio. 2014. www.ancientfaithradio.com/podcasts/aftoday/orthodoxy_and_the_envi ronment. Met. Kallistos of Diokleia. Interview with Presbytera Christina (Dr. Nellist), 24th February 2014, Oxford. Met. Kallistos of Diokleia. Extract of interview given at the International Conference on Religion and Animal Protection, St. Stephen’s House, Oxford. 21-23 July 2014. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=met.+kallistos+ware+ 2014&page=2.

Reports Animals in Science Committee, “Animals in Science Committee Report: Lessons to be learnt, for duty holders and the regulator, from reviews and investigations into non-compliance”, 2014. http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/326003/ASClessonsToBeLearnt2Jul14. British Union Against Vivisection, “BUAV Undercover Investigation Report”, 2013. http://www.buav.org/undercover-investigations/secretsuffering. Brown Report, “Brown Report. Independent investigation into animal research at Imperial College London”, 2013. http://brownreport.info/ wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Brown-Report.pdf. European Commission, “Animal Welfare Strategy 2012-2015. Better Welfare for Animals: A New E. U. Strategy for A New Approach”. 2012. Catalogue no. ND-31-12-535-EN-C. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/docs/aw_brochure_strategy_en.pdf. European Commission, “Roadmap for Moving to a Low-Carbon Economy in 2050”, 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm. European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, “The Welfare of Animals kept for Fur Production”, 2001. Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General: European Commission. http://www.furfreealliance.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/welfare_a nimals_kept_for_fur_production.pdf.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

409

European Commission’s Scientific Veterinary Committee (Animal Welfare Section), “Report on the Welfare of Calves.” DirectorateGeneral of Agriculture, VI/BII2, 1995. http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyra/whatsnew/whatsnew_archive_food.cfm. Home Office, “Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain”, 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-of-scientificprocedures-on-living-animals-great-britain-2014. International Food Policy Research Institute, Gerald Nelson et al. “Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation”, 2009. Washington. DC. IFPRI. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/rome2007/docs/Impact_on_ Agriculture_and_Costs_of_Adaptation.pdf. International Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) “Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change”, 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-102.html. Jackman, J., and A. Rowan, “Free-Roaming Dogs in ‘Developing Countries: The Benefits of Capture, Neuter, and Return Programs”, 2007. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/1_CNVR%2 0Jackman%20and%20Rowan%20%282%29.pdf. Linzey, A., and C. Linzey, “Normalizing the Unthinkable: The Ethics of Using Animals in Research.” Report by the Working Group of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. March 2015. Published as The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments, 2017. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/57527. National Research Council, (USA), “Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals.” Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources Committee on Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32658/. Organic Centre State of Science Review, Pimentel, D. “Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency of Energy Use in Agriculture.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2006. https://www.organiccenter.org/reportfiles/ENERGY_SSR.pdf. Royal Society. Woods, J. Williams, A. Hughes, J. K. Black, M., and R. Murphy, “Energy and the Food System”, 2010. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/2991.full. United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biodiversity, “Biodiversity and Climate Change”, 2007.

410

Bibliography

http://www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2007ibd-2007-booklet-01-en.pdf. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department: Animal Production and Health, “The Challenge of Dog Population Management for Public Health and Animal Welfare”, 2012. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/AGA_in_action/ 2011_Dog-Population-Management.html. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation: Animal Production & Health Division. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues & Options. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00. United Nations Food and Agriculture Report, “Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock”, 2013. http://fao.org/news/story/en/item/197608/ icode/?ucm_source=facebook&u. United States Food and Drug Administration, “Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products”, 2004. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/ SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ UCM113411.pdf. Vernelli, T, “The Dark Side of Dairy-A Report on the UK Dairy Industry”, 2005. http://milkmyths.org.uk/pdfs/dairy_report.pdf. Viva Health Report, Butler, J, “White Lies”, 2014. http://www.whitelies.org.uk/sites/default/files/milkmyths/White%20Li es%20report%202014.pdf. World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Department, Report No. 44010-GLB, 2009. “Minding The Stock: Bringing Public Policy to Bear on Livestock Sector Development.” Washington. DC. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/FinalMindingt heStock.pdf. World Health Organization, Bagel, K. “Guidelines for Dog Rabies Control.” Veterinary Public Health Unit, Division of Communicable Diseases, Geneva, Switzerland, 1987. http://www.who.int/rabies/en/Guidelines_for_dog_rabies_control.pdf. World Wildlife Fund, “Climate Change. Nature at risk: Threatened species.” http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/398/files/original/ Effects_of_Climate_Change_on_Polar_Bears_fact_sheet.pdf?1345754 206&_ga=1.217871958.1754967080.1481722006.

Newspapers Bowern, “Cameron's election pledge: 'I will lift the hunting ban'.” West Morning News. 6th March 2015.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

411

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/cameron-s-election-pledge-lifthunting-ban/story-26126143-detail/story.html#MYsKLchsYj1sDZjw. 99. Burgen, S, “We’re a violent nation’- director tackles Spain’s festival culture of animal cruelty.” The Guardian, 6th July 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/violent-nation-spainfestival-animal-cruelty-turkey-bulls-film-santa-fiesta. Cyprus Mail, “Priest fined for beating puppy.” 1st August 2008. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Priest+fined+for+beating+puppy.a0182058122. Cyprus Sunday Mail, “Reader’s letter: editor’s choice.” 15th August 2010. Jeory, T., and J. Stone, “David Attenborough calls for end to ‘cruel’ brain tests on primates by neuroscientists: Exclusive: Sir David joins 21 signatories to an open letter published in The Independent.” 7th September 2016 21:02 BST. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-attenboroughprimates-neuroscientists-cruel-brain-tests-a7230711.html. New Observer, “Cannibalism Still Stalks African Conflicts.” 2nd November 2014. http://newobserveronline.com/ cannibalism-stillstalks-african-conflict. Pitta, G, “Holy Insult” Politis.” 18th Aug, 2010ust Raffaele, P, “Sleeping with Cannibals.” Smithsonian Magazine, September 2006. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/sleeping-with-cannibals 128958913/#o83pSOARkCdCM4x2.99. Rawstorne, T, “Exposed – The Cruel Farms of Italy. Buffalos Submitted to Appalling Treatment.” The Daily Mail, 12th September 2014. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754065/Exposed-The-cruelfarms-Italy-buffaloes-subjected-appalling-treatment-ll-mozzarellalife.html. Witherow. T, “Halal slaughtermen hacked sheep’s throats.” Daily Mail, 3rd March 2018. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5456263/Menchanted-tribal-style-dance-killed-sheep-spared-jail.html.

Broadcast Attenborough, D, “Sixty Years In The Wild.” TV, BBC 1, 16th November 2013, 21:00 hrs. BBC Bristol Productions. —. “The Great Barrier Reef.” Episode 1. TV, BBC 1, 30th December 2015, 21:00 hrs. Atlantic Productions Ltd. Horizon, “How You Really Make Decisions.” TV, BBC 2, 24th February 2014, 21:00 hrs. BBC Science Production.

412

Bibliography

Horizon, “Should I Eat Meat?” TV, BBC 1, 20th August 2014, 21:00 hrs, BBC Science Production MMXIV. Leroi, A. M. “Aristotle’s Lagoon.” TV, BBC 4, 10th June 2014, 21.00 hrs.

Filmography “A Day on a German Farm in 5 minutes.” 24-hour time-lap video from a German farm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buJKrJKRfuw. Goodhall, J, “Hunting in Africa.” Video provided for the Winchester Hunting Symposium. Winchester University, 28th November 2015. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFcSZizooL63hyILbzM9Bfl wi2fs0n37s. Karkanevatos, K, “Breath of Earth.” Lampros Liavas (Dir.) 2002. Shown at the “Sacred and Secular Life and Art: A Workshop Dedicated to the Memory of Philip Sherrard” conference, Ioannou Centre, Oxford, UK. 16th July 2016. http://www.filmfestival.gr/2003/uk/process.php?movieid=576&eventid =124. Kate Winslet, Foie Gras, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyOu-GVtgPQ. Olivia Munn, “Olivia Munn exposes Fur Farms.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab7L8NRRYho. Rabbi Summit, “Tza ar Ba'alei Chayim-Animal Rights.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9lgdWiisQ4. “The Green Patriarch.” DVD. http://www.becketfilms.com/index.php/environment-films/the-greenpatriarch.

Websites https://action.hsi.org/page/22048/action/1?ea.tracking.id=email-. http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org. http://lan.sagepub.com. http://www.addaong.org. http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/slaughter/ALL///. https://www.animalaid.org.uk/the-issues/our-campaigns/horse-racing/. https://www.animalsasia.org/uk/our-work/cat-and-dog-welfare/what-wedo/tackling-the-meat-trade.html. http: //www.animalexperiments.info. http://www.animal-interfaith-alliance.com/news/page/6/. https://www.antifurcoalition.org.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering Ancient Voices in Modern Theology

413

http://www.atla.org.uk. https://birdlifecyprus.org/news-details/conservation-science/birds-of-preyfalling-victims-to-reckless-behaviours. http://www.bornfree.org.uk/animals/chimps/projects/bushmeat/. http://www.buav.org/undercover-investigations/secret-suffering. https://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Newsroom/Newsreleases/Vets-call-unrestricted-access-slaughterhouse-CCTV/. http://www.care2.com/causes/10-animals-that-spend-their-entire-lives-ina-space-smaller-than-your-bathtub.html#ixzz49eJ8wvWR. http://www.care2.com/causes/demand-justice-for-cecil-the-lionskiller.html. http://www.care2.com/causes/stop-this-circus-from-exploiting-polarbears-on-international-polar-bear-day.html#ixzz49eQhHbFy. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/ld50.html. https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-cecil-the-lion-s-son-shot-by-trophyhunters. https://www.change.org/search?q=bullfighting%20in%20spain. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/environmental-damage/climatechange-in-dIet. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2013/05/illegal-slaughter-of-animals-incyprus/. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/research/?page=2. https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/what-we-do/breaking-news/sirdavid-attenborough-calls-end-brain-experiments-monkeys. www.crustaceancompassion.org.uk. http://www.cva.com.cy. https://www.furfreealliance.com/fur-farming/. https://www.furfreealliance.com/seal-hunt/. https://www.furfreealliance.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/trapping1.jpg https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=animal+experimentation+photographs &client=firefoxbab&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ah UKEwj9n6WX8P3QAhWrIcAKHXORCWQQ7AkIOQ&biw=1760& bih=868. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fur+farms&client=firefoxbab&tbm=is ch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8JTI7v3QAhVFFM AKHcpTDWYQ7AkIew&biw=1760&bih=868. https://www.league.org.uk/greyhound-racing. http://www.league.org.uk/our-campaigns/snaring/whats-wrong-withsnaring. http://www.navs.org.uk. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

414

Bibliography

http://www.nmrm.org. http://panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org http://www.peta.org.uk/action/type/action-alert/. https://www.peta.org.uk/blog/unilad-the-hunt/?utm_campaign=SKN%20 farfetch%Fur2018&utm_source=ENews%20Email&utm_medium=Pro mo. http://www.respectforanimals.org. https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and pharmaceutical-science/draize-test. http://weanimals.org.