Man: his Children and his Animals [Minor Treatise]

by h.st.c

Much debate and controversy has been strewn about over the Holy Father’s comments concerning pets and the responsibility of humans to reproduce and become parents. The context of Pope Francis’s comments, which are detailed in an article by Courtney Mare for the Catholic News Agency, can be found in a general audience the Pope gave that occurred during January 5, where the main theme focused around family, parenthood, and the responsibility of humans to their primordial calling of fatherhood and motherhood. The Holy Father called it ‘a civilizational loss when dogs and cats replace children in society’. 

“The other day, I was talking about the demographic winter that we have today … many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one — but they have two dogs, two cats, (…) “Yes, dogs and cats take the place of children. Yes, it’s funny, I understand, but it is the reality, and this denial of fatherhood and motherhood diminishes us, takes away humanity.”

-Pope Francis, Jan 5 via CNA

The bulk of this essay will be my defense of Pope Francis’ comments, as I am in agreement with his sentiments: the seemingly sudden usurpation of children with animals as the center of affection within modern young couples is indicative of an indulgent behavior symptomatic of a sick and dying society, a youth that is selfish and cannot see into a future beyond what is pleasurable for them, and a world wherein children are seen as a burden on the now rather than the hope of the future.

In nature, animals cannot procreate when they’re sick, disfigured, or outcast from the group. This usually occurs when they are very old and reaching the end of their lives, and even if they have staved off the aforementioned hardships- they might become infertile and unable to reproduce as a result of their advanced age. That is why, in the naturally behavior of almost all animals within nature that reproduce sexually, it is usually the first or one of the first things they seek to accomplish upon maturation: the insurance of the next generation of their species. Once that is done and over with- death, old age, disease, and sickness all seem inconsequential to the animal- as it may live on beyond its own death in the offspring it has begotten. Humans are no exception to this doctrine of natural law. Animals however, who have no rationality, come to prioritize reproduction upon maturation through their vegetative and sensual powers; through the biological will that drives them to survive and procreate as they do. They do not ask why nor are they capable of knowing why, but they simply know that they must. Animals do not understand the ontology that dictates their being and ways, they simply obey. Humans, who unlike animals are rather rational,  by their free will seem to be able to disobey their nature. Throughout history, I opine that much of what has been put to further humans throughout time was not put down for the humans who initiated these progresses, but for the children that will live beyond them and carry on those progresses. Society, from its most primordial to recent decades, was built around the idea that what we have created can continue through our children. This is the mode of how traditions work: how we as humans (in as much as we can be parents) can equip our children with the best of our times to improve upon themselves in the coming of their own times, in the times where we will no longer be with them. What does it take to be a parent, to be one of those select few to tailor and prepare the youth, before anyone else in society or the wider world can, the things in which they must do well to learn? Parents must endure parenthood- that is the only way. Parenthood is an intrinsically unselfish and self-sacrificial act. Parents in holy matrimony are, in a way, a beautiful imitation of the sacrifice of Christ- giving all for the sake of the one’s children as Jesus had for the sake of the rest of us.  The lack of this desire is what Pope Francis has rightly identified as selfishness. This life is not one’s own to live: it is either lived in love, out of love, or without love. To live for oneself has always been the primary and primordial source of self-hatred: you will find within yourself very little to love.

In choosing not to reproduce, more and more humans do not go through parenthood, and are therefore ill-equipped to teach, cultivate, and develop the minds and hearts of children. How could they? When they themselves can barely think of anyone but themselves and are unable to fathom the responsibility of parenthood, they cannot possibly transmit with efficiency and genuine learning the skills of today to the youth of tomorrow. I was raised in an environment of teachers. My two grandmothers, my own mother, my aunt, and- God-willing- myself, were all and will soon be teachers. For everyone of them except me,  they were first and foremost mothers. Through motherhood, they learned patience, sacrifice, the manner of speaking to a child, the manner of disciplining a child, the techniques wherein children can be coaxed to learn and create, the skills necessary to help a child continue learning, and most importantly: a passion and love for teaching children (quite necessary if one were to develop the patience to deal with them in the first place). Their initial mastery of motherhood for their own children allowed them to eventually master teaching children other than their own. Their initial mastery of teaching smaller humans to be human augmented and improved upon their eventual mastery of teaching young school children basic subjects. The very first thing a human learns is how to be human, and this learned humanity is learned from no other but the humans closest to us since the very beginning: our parents. When young couples refuse parenthood in favour of merely being over glorified zoo-masters, the collective learned humanity of the world heads towards a net loss. All that being said, I do not advocate against the keeping of animals as pets. Pets, in as much as they should never be a substitute for children, can become an important part of the family. They can teach children gentility, comradery, the value of loyalty, and provide a stalwart companion. All that aside however, dogs cannot care for you in your old age.

 It seems as if the choice to become a motherly or fatherly figure towards an animal over that of a child stems from mainly two sources: selfishness, which we have discussed at length above, and power, which we will discuss now. It cannot be denied, no matter how much the luxuriant pamper their poodles and play dogs as they place them upon pedestals to seemingly worship, man has always been the master of his animals. This dynamic is evident in natural law (animals being irrational as compared to rational humans) and is a prerequisite to understanding human-animal bond theory. Tannenbaum (1995) suggested that the relationship needs to be of a continuous nature and must be bi-directional. Furthermore, he points out that the relationships should be voluntary. Humans and animals have, in the past, voluntarily shared the goal of survival with each other and have helped each other as such, in as much as the both of them could be benefitted through the arrangement. Wolves, and soon dogs, saw this as a way to survive and enlarge their ‘pack’- and so, intelligent as wolves and dogs may be, this alliance with man stems simply from the sensual power of their souls; their biological will to survive as efficiently as they could. Man, however, found not only great advantage in survival by cooperation with animals, but also found companionship, camaraderie, and loyalty within these animals: concepts found only within a rational mind, however extant to a partial extent within animals and is not totally a foreign concept to them. In a way, pets are chief amongst the genus of domesticated animals. Researchers like Russow (2002) agree that the human-animal bond revolves around this persistent reciprocality and the promise of mutual benefit. However, none of these researchers deny the obvious truth that is man’s dominance over animals and the weight of power ultimately erring towards the master in these human-animal bonds.

A relationship as such detailed above is a noble one, but man must never put his own species in jeopardy for the sake of another. A dog would bite its own master’s hand long before she would ever allow him to harm her pups. And yet here we are, depriving the future of our own for the sake of these animals. In such a case, the animals are greater than us in their responsibility to their own species. Why is this such? It is because animals are much easier to control and impress one’s will over than children. An animal’s attachment to man, however primal it may be, is always genuine: it comes out of a need for survival, and through this need, an animal’s bond with man begets crude but ultimately genuine expressions of companionship, camaraderie, and loyalty. Man does not need pets to survive however. A disillusioned youth may see this companionship, camaraderie, and loyalty present in a dog and mistaken it for a kind of love that can only ever be achieved in relation with other humans, be it familial, romantic, or the love of one’s children. This is an attitude that is in its source, anti-parental. Instead of sacrificing oneself out of love for one’s children, one imposes one’s will over a lesser animal in order to feel love from it. This attitude towards a pet, in as much as it is a pet, begets the same kind of kinship that was enkindled in the early days of man and wolf. This attitude towards a pet, treated as if it were a child however, is unnatural and unjustly imposes a will that expects the kind of love from an animal that only a child can bring. Children are difficult to love, a parent that is unselfish and good however, loves them unconditionally and bears with the hardships out of love. Pets are easy to fawn over; a ‘dogparent’ only ever loves them inasmuch as it can seemingly love them back, proving no matter what the situation or circumstance may be, the hierarchy in which humans are above animals always has man imposing his will- no matter how justly or unjustly- upon an animal for whatever profit he may seek to gain from it. Meat and milk from a cow, labour from an ox, transport from a horse, worship from a pomeranian. 

Julius Caesar experienced this seemingly worshipful attitude towards animals (or, conversely, having animals around in order to worship oneself) through a tour throughout Rome. His reaction was preserved by Plutarch:

Caesar once, seeing some wealthy strangers at Rome, carrying up and down with them in their arms and bosoms young puppy-dogs and monkeys, embracing and making much of them, took occasion not unnaturally to ask whether the women in their country were not used to bear children; by that prince-like reprimand gravely reflecting upon persons who spend and lavish upon brute beasts that affection and kindness which nature has implanted in us to be bestowed on those of our own kind. With like reason may we blame those who misuse that love of inquiry and observation which nature has implanted in our souls, by expending it on objects unworthy of the attention either of their eyes or their ears, while they disregard such as are excellent in themselves, and would do them good.

-Plutarch: Lives of the noble Greeks and Romans

It seems as if the problem of misplaced human affection has plagued us for a very long time. In conclusion, we must take care to revitalize interest in parenthood. We must defend the family, community, and most importantly- our children. Ad nauseam may be the mantra of making the world better for the children, but it is obvious we are failing at this. One needs but a cursory glance at the world around them. We must uphold, as our responsibility, parenthood; of the both the biological (mothers and fathers) and spiritual (priests and religious) type. It is the only way we can progress humanity through our children, nay- it is the only way to progress humanity at all!

References:

Mares, C. (2022, January 5). Pope Francis: Society loses when ‘dogs and cats take the place of children’. Catholic News Agency. Retrieved January 11, 2022, from https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250016/pope-francis-general-audience-society-loses-when-dogs-and-cats-take-the-place-of-children

Russow, L.-M. (2002). Ethical implications of the human-animal bond in the Laboratory. ILAR Journal, 43(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.1.33

Tannenbaum, J. (1999). Ethics and pain research in animals. ILAR Journal, 40(3), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.40.3.97