It might have seemed self-evident to some of us that a man should be considered more important than a tiger, but that opinion is becoming increasingly antiquated. We ought to consider the sheer scope of what we lose with this new prioritization.
That case is self evident for many of us because is a Tiger killing a man. What about the relation dogs/modern humans? Its much more sutile but the problem is the same. Recently, i knew about a relative of mine (cousing) that is getting divorced because her Husband is breeding 13 PitBulls(the female gave birt to 11) and refuse to give most of them. Her father told me that in a recent visit, He became almost a hostage, locked in bedroon's guest for the couple of days the visit undured.
An otherwise reasonable friend let's his chihuahua bite his arms causing punctures and lacerations because "it makes the dog happy." Local Los Angeles culture has people pushing dogs in baby strollers, which I see more often then carriages with babies. Animals don't have the use of reason but humans seem to be surrendering theirs to emotional altruism prioritizing pets over people.
Sarah, an Australian lady, has Mark Levin's show right now, Mary Mullen.
She grew up in Indonesia, and she is warning about Muslim extremism. She even speaks the language. Very interesting and very inspiring. Please listen in!
This whole discussion is missing the time element.
1. What should have been done before the unlucky fellow jumped/fell?
2. What should have been done when the attack was occurring? This also must include available resources. Shoot the tiger isn't a possibility if the nearest rifle was 20 minutes away.
I agree. I have not watched the video (nor do I intend to)so I don’t have the context of this incident. However my thoughts on the different possible scenarios are;
- if the man could have been saved by killing the tiger, then the tiger should have been killed. I think that if this would have been possible it would have been done, and if it were possible and wasn’t done, then I believe it was possibly a crime, or at the very least the person capable of stopping the tiger is open to civil action.
- if there was no immediate way to stop the tiger, this was a tragedy. But I see no need to kill the tiger afterward because the tiger has no sense of right or wrong and did not commit a crime and cannot face justice.
From what I have heard about this incident the latter seems most probable.
Often wild animals are put down after killing humans, but this is to prevent them from killing again, since they learned that humans can be prey. But this was a zoo animal, and would not have another opportunity to kill assuming humans stay out of the enclosure. If caretakers felt threatened however then the animal should be put down.
The obvious answer is they could have just as easily shot the tiger with a fast acting tranquilizer and saved both the man and the tiger. If that's not possible then shoot the tiger.
Amen, Sarah, to your excellently understated but most powerful essay.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no teaching of the Catholic Church that is opposed to reason, which is to say that all of its teachings are indeed most reasonable.
If some of the teachings of the Catholic Church go beyond reason, that is also reasonable, as God is beyond man. In other words, the Catholic faith contains certain mysteries. However, even these mysteries are not against reason, only beyond it.
One might say that Catholicism is the religion of reason, perhaps the only religion of reason. Also, it is perhaps the only form of Christianity that is totally consistent with reason, because it is the fullest expression of Christianity.
To Catholics, the wonders of creation are a revelation of God as much as is the Bible. Therefore, if these two different ways of understanding God are both properly interpreted and applied, they cannot be in contradiction; they are always in agreement.
***
So, the world is being unreasonable when it says that the Catholic Church opposes reason. It's the world that is wrong. All of the teachings of divine revelation are in accord with all of the teachings of human reason used properly.
We do know that human reason is subject to error, though, while divine revelation is not. In this sense, divine revelation is a corrective for our errors of human reason based on pride or passion or ignorance.
For example, the basics of the Ten Commandments are based on reason. These are the foundation for the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, which are always reasonable restraints on our behavior for our own good. They are necessary to any healthy society for its harmony and prosperity, even its continuity.
The teaching against abortion is not only theology, but biology. As the unborn baby is undoubtedly a human being according to science and logic, he or she is deserving of protection with nurturing and cherishing.
Other aspects of the Ten Commandments and the moral code of the Catholic Church are integral to the preservation of the family, its material security and emotional stability.
All of the controversial sexual teachings of the Catholic Church are for the safeguarding of the family. They reserve sex for the twin purposes of love and openness to procreation -- not one or the other, but both.
That's why contraception is wrong; it thwarts procreation. It's also unnatural, as it blocks a natural result of sex in the creation of human life. To do so, many women ingest a corporate chemical cocktail of artificial steroids that they would not tolerate if an equivalent was found in a carton of milk at the grocery store.
As I understand it, the World Health Organization has labeled the birth control pill as a carcinogen, that is a cause of cancer. That's not surprising, as it's unnatural -- that is to say, inorganic and artificial. (Consider a book on this subject by Christopher Kahlenborn, M.D.)
Even in this example of morality in which the proponents of the Pill scorn and ridicule the Catholic Church most liberally, it is evident which is on the side of not only revelation, but reason.
***
All of this leads to a strange phenomenon noted in Sarah Cain's sensible and sensitive piece about the tiger, and how we must tame our reactions to this story. It is right to care about the tiger, but not at the expense of the immensely more precious human.
This realization might come home to us more immediately if any one of us was literally in the jaws of death. As I will try to explain as a conclusion to this comment, the teachings of Jesus are meant in large part to spare us from such extremes of peril and pain before we come to our senses.
When we forsake the guidance of the Catholic Church -- as founded by Jesus to present himself the same in all times and places -- we tend toward losing our sanity.
We see it all around us, as in the case of preferring the tiger to the human.
We see it in the baffling hysteria in favor of transgenderism as a supposed human right. (See Substack author Andy Ngo's new book about the bizarre and dangerous Zizians for a terrifying example of how such absurdities lead to atrocities.)
It's a recurrent theme of history that a rejection of the supernatural leads to the unnatural and the irrational to the extent of our ruin. Due to the gravity of Original Sin, we need to aim the arrow of righteousness higher than the target in order to hit our mark. We need divine grace in order to maintain our humanity.
Two relevant books on may be worth examining:
In "The Everlasting Man," G.K. Chesterton investigates first of all how humans are above all of the other animals, and then how Jesus is above all the other humans.
Then there's a new book I haven't read which sounds intriguing, by Chad Engelland, "The Way of Aquinas: A Travelogue for Human Beings."
I'd be interested to read a review of this book by Sarah if she is so inclined.
In closing, when we say truth, we are also saying reality.
If we don't live by reality, we can get hurt. If we don't know about gravity, we are in for a hard fall. If we don't understand electricity, we risk a rude shock.
If we don't know the teachings of Jesus, we are in for physical harm and emotional heartbreak. We see it all around us in an epidemic of desolation and loneliness (which, it is essential to note, can only be fully healed by the Sacred Heart of Jesus.)
We tend to not realize how very much Jesus does love each and every one of us, and how he wants us to be happy -- not only in heaven, but as much as possible on earth.
At times his teachings are quite difficult to adhere to, but they are ultimately for our own good in body and soul. They are the ways of true love.
(P.S. Please excuse my length. In my enthusiasm, I sometimes get carried away spontaneously. Please pardon any excess on my part. Also, I'm glad for kindly corrections and added context.)
While there have been many crass and heartless comments on this tragedy, most comments I've seen, in relation to the fate of the tiger, concern whether to kill him AFTER the fact. My view is no. The tiger is a wild animal and was behaving as expected. It's not a domesticated pet that lives among us such that if it goes berserk and kills a human we should properly put it down.
You have identified the main problem, that so many are no longer able to "see." When I first began to read scripture it seemed to deliver a monotonous message, which always ended in disaster, because we did not keep God first in our lives. Why would people not understand their history to simply obey the commandments? The reason is very subtle. It is not due to our disobedience, but our sense of superiority. How long does it take a couple to become "one"? to understand that we are useless without the other? We inevitably grow distant from God because "we know better," or He was just "not good enough," to be in a relationship with. If we actually loved God we could not be without him, or try to hurt Him in any way. What does God love the most? His Created to whom he gave a soul. We must look after them all.
Gonna disagree with the author on this: we should NOT have to kill the tiger to stop it mauling the man. Nope. He voided his birth cert and the tiger is what it is. I don't blame the tiger for doing what tigers do. I blame the man for suiciding by tiger.
This reminds me of what a former (repeat... FORMER) friend of mine said when "Cecil the Lion" was LEGALLY, at the time, shot (using a compound bow) by an American hunter some years ago. He said that the hunter himself should be killed for such a "heinous act". Part of the oputrage was due to the fact that the hunter was an American, and of course, we all know that's an immediate strike against as thought by almost all non-Americans. I think the outrage would have been non existent if a local Zimbabwean had committed the act. Obviously, animal "rights" activists value the lives of all animals over humans. Of course we should maintain proper stewardship of animals and not kill them for no reason, but what they also fail to understand is that animals cannot have "rights" because they cannot make agreements. Humans are the only creatures to be given rights by God, as we are the only entities on the planet capable of respecting them. Most people don't even know what true rights really are. This is, I think, part of what you are getting to in your article.
If you enter an arena where you could sustain injury or this case death of your own free will, English Law will not assist you. In effect it will side with the Tiger in this case.
Though your statement is LEGALLY correct, doesn't it seem the morally correct thing to do to save the man, if possible, even if that requires shooting the tiger?
Humans have been conditioned to accept brutal actions thru social media, TV & Movies.
Amazing how far we have fallen.
Thank you for making me think a different point of view
That case is self evident for many of us because is a Tiger killing a man. What about the relation dogs/modern humans? Its much more sutile but the problem is the same. Recently, i knew about a relative of mine (cousing) that is getting divorced because her Husband is breeding 13 PitBulls(the female gave birt to 11) and refuse to give most of them. Her father told me that in a recent visit, He became almost a hostage, locked in bedroon's guest for the couple of days the visit undured.
An otherwise reasonable friend let's his chihuahua bite his arms causing punctures and lacerations because "it makes the dog happy." Local Los Angeles culture has people pushing dogs in baby strollers, which I see more often then carriages with babies. Animals don't have the use of reason but humans seem to be surrendering theirs to emotional altruism prioritizing pets over people.
Sarah, an Australian lady, has Mark Levin's show right now, Mary Mullen.
She grew up in Indonesia, and she is warning about Muslim extremism. She even speaks the language. Very interesting and very inspiring. Please listen in!
David
Erin Molan is her name. She has her own YouTube show.
This whole discussion is missing the time element.
1. What should have been done before the unlucky fellow jumped/fell?
2. What should have been done when the attack was occurring? This also must include available resources. Shoot the tiger isn't a possibility if the nearest rifle was 20 minutes away.
3. What should be done now?
I agree. I have not watched the video (nor do I intend to)so I don’t have the context of this incident. However my thoughts on the different possible scenarios are;
- if the man could have been saved by killing the tiger, then the tiger should have been killed. I think that if this would have been possible it would have been done, and if it were possible and wasn’t done, then I believe it was possibly a crime, or at the very least the person capable of stopping the tiger is open to civil action.
- if there was no immediate way to stop the tiger, this was a tragedy. But I see no need to kill the tiger afterward because the tiger has no sense of right or wrong and did not commit a crime and cannot face justice.
From what I have heard about this incident the latter seems most probable.
Often wild animals are put down after killing humans, but this is to prevent them from killing again, since they learned that humans can be prey. But this was a zoo animal, and would not have another opportunity to kill assuming humans stay out of the enclosure. If caretakers felt threatened however then the animal should be put down.
The obvious answer is they could have just as easily shot the tiger with a fast acting tranquilizer and saved both the man and the tiger. If that's not possible then shoot the tiger.
Agreed. But that is no longer obvious to some people.
Amen, Sarah, to your excellently understated but most powerful essay.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no teaching of the Catholic Church that is opposed to reason, which is to say that all of its teachings are indeed most reasonable.
If some of the teachings of the Catholic Church go beyond reason, that is also reasonable, as God is beyond man. In other words, the Catholic faith contains certain mysteries. However, even these mysteries are not against reason, only beyond it.
One might say that Catholicism is the religion of reason, perhaps the only religion of reason. Also, it is perhaps the only form of Christianity that is totally consistent with reason, because it is the fullest expression of Christianity.
To Catholics, the wonders of creation are a revelation of God as much as is the Bible. Therefore, if these two different ways of understanding God are both properly interpreted and applied, they cannot be in contradiction; they are always in agreement.
***
So, the world is being unreasonable when it says that the Catholic Church opposes reason. It's the world that is wrong. All of the teachings of divine revelation are in accord with all of the teachings of human reason used properly.
We do know that human reason is subject to error, though, while divine revelation is not. In this sense, divine revelation is a corrective for our errors of human reason based on pride or passion or ignorance.
For example, the basics of the Ten Commandments are based on reason. These are the foundation for the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, which are always reasonable restraints on our behavior for our own good. They are necessary to any healthy society for its harmony and prosperity, even its continuity.
The teaching against abortion is not only theology, but biology. As the unborn baby is undoubtedly a human being according to science and logic, he or she is deserving of protection with nurturing and cherishing.
Other aspects of the Ten Commandments and the moral code of the Catholic Church are integral to the preservation of the family, its material security and emotional stability.
All of the controversial sexual teachings of the Catholic Church are for the safeguarding of the family. They reserve sex for the twin purposes of love and openness to procreation -- not one or the other, but both.
That's why contraception is wrong; it thwarts procreation. It's also unnatural, as it blocks a natural result of sex in the creation of human life. To do so, many women ingest a corporate chemical cocktail of artificial steroids that they would not tolerate if an equivalent was found in a carton of milk at the grocery store.
As I understand it, the World Health Organization has labeled the birth control pill as a carcinogen, that is a cause of cancer. That's not surprising, as it's unnatural -- that is to say, inorganic and artificial. (Consider a book on this subject by Christopher Kahlenborn, M.D.)
Even in this example of morality in which the proponents of the Pill scorn and ridicule the Catholic Church most liberally, it is evident which is on the side of not only revelation, but reason.
***
All of this leads to a strange phenomenon noted in Sarah Cain's sensible and sensitive piece about the tiger, and how we must tame our reactions to this story. It is right to care about the tiger, but not at the expense of the immensely more precious human.
This realization might come home to us more immediately if any one of us was literally in the jaws of death. As I will try to explain as a conclusion to this comment, the teachings of Jesus are meant in large part to spare us from such extremes of peril and pain before we come to our senses.
When we forsake the guidance of the Catholic Church -- as founded by Jesus to present himself the same in all times and places -- we tend toward losing our sanity.
We see it all around us, as in the case of preferring the tiger to the human.
We see it in the baffling hysteria in favor of transgenderism as a supposed human right. (See Substack author Andy Ngo's new book about the bizarre and dangerous Zizians for a terrifying example of how such absurdities lead to atrocities.)
It's a recurrent theme of history that a rejection of the supernatural leads to the unnatural and the irrational to the extent of our ruin. Due to the gravity of Original Sin, we need to aim the arrow of righteousness higher than the target in order to hit our mark. We need divine grace in order to maintain our humanity.
Two relevant books on may be worth examining:
In "The Everlasting Man," G.K. Chesterton investigates first of all how humans are above all of the other animals, and then how Jesus is above all the other humans.
Then there's a new book I haven't read which sounds intriguing, by Chad Engelland, "The Way of Aquinas: A Travelogue for Human Beings."
I'd be interested to read a review of this book by Sarah if she is so inclined.
In closing, when we say truth, we are also saying reality.
If we don't live by reality, we can get hurt. If we don't know about gravity, we are in for a hard fall. If we don't understand electricity, we risk a rude shock.
If we don't know the teachings of Jesus, we are in for physical harm and emotional heartbreak. We see it all around us in an epidemic of desolation and loneliness (which, it is essential to note, can only be fully healed by the Sacred Heart of Jesus.)
We tend to not realize how very much Jesus does love each and every one of us, and how he wants us to be happy -- not only in heaven, but as much as possible on earth.
At times his teachings are quite difficult to adhere to, but they are ultimately for our own good in body and soul. They are the ways of true love.
(P.S. Please excuse my length. In my enthusiasm, I sometimes get carried away spontaneously. Please pardon any excess on my part. Also, I'm glad for kindly corrections and added context.)
Yes, thanks for the clarification! I did find her too.
While there have been many crass and heartless comments on this tragedy, most comments I've seen, in relation to the fate of the tiger, concern whether to kill him AFTER the fact. My view is no. The tiger is a wild animal and was behaving as expected. It's not a domesticated pet that lives among us such that if it goes berserk and kills a human we should properly put it down.
You have identified the main problem, that so many are no longer able to "see." When I first began to read scripture it seemed to deliver a monotonous message, which always ended in disaster, because we did not keep God first in our lives. Why would people not understand their history to simply obey the commandments? The reason is very subtle. It is not due to our disobedience, but our sense of superiority. How long does it take a couple to become "one"? to understand that we are useless without the other? We inevitably grow distant from God because "we know better," or He was just "not good enough," to be in a relationship with. If we actually loved God we could not be without him, or try to hurt Him in any way. What does God love the most? His Created to whom he gave a soul. We must look after them all.
Gonna disagree with the author on this: we should NOT have to kill the tiger to stop it mauling the man. Nope. He voided his birth cert and the tiger is what it is. I don't blame the tiger for doing what tigers do. I blame the man for suiciding by tiger.
It occurred to me that what would each respondent have to say if it was a woman killed rather than a man?
That would be a fascinating contrast, actually.
This reminds me of what a former (repeat... FORMER) friend of mine said when "Cecil the Lion" was LEGALLY, at the time, shot (using a compound bow) by an American hunter some years ago. He said that the hunter himself should be killed for such a "heinous act". Part of the oputrage was due to the fact that the hunter was an American, and of course, we all know that's an immediate strike against as thought by almost all non-Americans. I think the outrage would have been non existent if a local Zimbabwean had committed the act. Obviously, animal "rights" activists value the lives of all animals over humans. Of course we should maintain proper stewardship of animals and not kill them for no reason, but what they also fail to understand is that animals cannot have "rights" because they cannot make agreements. Humans are the only creatures to be given rights by God, as we are the only entities on the planet capable of respecting them. Most people don't even know what true rights really are. This is, I think, part of what you are getting to in your article.
God's wisdom awaits for those seeking. The harvest is plenty but the laborers are few. History can repeat itself.
If you enter an arena where you could sustain injury or this case death of your own free will, English Law will not assist you. In effect it will side with the Tiger in this case.
Though your statement is LEGALLY correct, doesn't it seem the morally correct thing to do to save the man, if possible, even if that requires shooting the tiger?