In the week leading up to today's Feast of St. Francis, it fell
to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to decide whether the sale and
production of foie gras should be terminated in California on the
grounds of cruelty to animals. At first, the governor called the
proposal another "silly" example of a legislature with too much time
on its hands. But then Wednesday he signed the bill into law,
apparently finding that the cruelty questions are not so easily
shrugged off.
Following the usual pattern of these debates, advocates gave us
the harrowing details of how the product is made – by repeatedly
shoving a pipe down the throat of a duck or goose, until the
creature's liver has swelled to 10 or 12 times its natural
size. Opponents, meanwhile, expressed indignation at being
lectured to about their habits and favorite fare. David Shaw, food
critic for the Los Angeles Times, called the whole business
a "ridiculous excursion into political correctness," adding: "I'm
not ready – never will be ready – to give up steaks, lamb chops,
roast chicken, veal chops or anything else just because a bunch of
fanatics want to suck on celery sticks and make goo-goo eyes over
farm animals."
I'm always struck by this attitude, as if one should be able to
have foie gras, veal, "or anything else" without being burdened with
the knowledge of how it was obtained. Foie gras and veal are both,
by definition, the product of sick, maltreated animals. However
one cares to react to this datum, it is not fanatical or ill
mannered to point it out, but a frank acknowledgment of the moral
costs. Nor is it clear, in Mr. Shaw's case, that a man rising in
angry defense of a table treat has any business
telling other people
to get serious.
To his credit,
however, at least this food
critic makes no pretense of any loftier motive than having his
favorite delicacy. For those who profess a higher code, it is a
different matter. Christians in particular, as they honor the
example of St. Francis today, would do well to examine some of their
own attitudes about the treatment of farm animals.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, leader of the Catholic Church's
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked recently to
weigh in on these very questions. Animals, he told German journalist
Peter Seewald, must be respected as our "companions in creation."
While it is licit to use them for food,
"we cannot just do whatever we want with them. ... Certainly, a sort
of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way
as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed
together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading
of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict
the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible."
Sometimes the most radical thing is to be confronted by one's own
standards, and if the cardinal is correct here, then we've got some
real problems. Across America and the world, millions of our
companions in creation are locked away in industrial
"mass-confinement" farms, never feeling soil or sunshine. If they
ever see pasture land, it is only from trucks
hauling them to industrial abattoirs that kill at a hellish pace of
thousands per hour. On hog farms like the Smithfield facilities I
toured a few years ago in North Carolina, even the littlest mercies
– a bit of maternal care, room to roam outdoors, straw to lie on –
have long since been taken away as needless and costly luxuries.
News
reports following each new "mad-cow" scare – of calves fed a swill
of blood and excrement, of downed animals unable even to walk to
their death – give the merest glimpse of all the moral shortcuts and
man-made miseries of the factory farm. Moral concern has surrendered
entirely to economic calculation, leaving no limit to the hurt and
privation that "growers" are willing to inflict upon animals to keep
costs down and profits up. And far from "making goo-goo eyes" at
farm animals, as Mr. Shaw puts it, we don't think of them at all. Or
else we readily accept the pious-sounding justifications invoked by
factory farmers to cover
their cruelties – a little cheap grace to go with their cheap meat.
Critics like Mr. Shaw want us to take a hard, unsentimental view
of animals. They never seem to take a hard, unsentimental look at
themselves and the demands they place upon the humble animals. Hence
this sniveling about the loss of a frivolous little meal starter, as
if his pleasure is everything and their suffering nothing.
Religious people
answer to a different standard, however, as we were reminded in this
weekend's blessing of the animals. It was said of St. Francis that
"he walked the earth like the pardon of God." What would this man
make of our factory farms, and what Christian in his presence would
dare defend them?
Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter to President Bush and
the author of "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of
Animals," can be reached at www.matthewscully.com.