Christianity offers a surprisingly rich source of arguments in favour of vegetarianism. It helps us to imagine a different relationship between humans and the animal kingdom, one that is not based on cruelty, exploitation or disregard. Christians, insofar as they regard their religion as one of love and empathy, should consider vegetarianism. The arguments that are presented here should, of course, also be appealing to atheists and believers of all religions. In arguing for vegetarianism, this article takes the reader through four essential considerations that all humans should have in relation to animals.
A first consideration is the suffering of animals. The practice of eating animals is so normalised in our society that we often forget to ask ourselves whether animals have suffered so that we may eat them. Yet, a basic principle of ethics is that we should not inflict unnecessary suffering on others.
This issue of animal suffering is particularly concerning with regard to meat consumption. In the UK, more than 80% of our meat consumption comes from factory farming. Here animals are confined in very restricted spaces where they can hardly breathe, move or see the light of day. Their testicles, horns or teeth are often mutilated to maximise productivity. And their lives end in slaughterhouses in terribly stressful and painful conditions. The horror of this practice should interrogate us and make us reconsider our eating habits.
Beyond animal suffering, a second consideration is the value of animal life. There is something intrinsically wrong about taking away the life of animals against their will. Humans have no right, in normal circumstances, to kill animals. Their lives do not belong to us, and they are not ours to take away for our own benefits. We empathise more readily with fellow human beings, and we think that it is obvious that we have no right to kill each other. But we tend to forget that the same principle applies to animals.
Life itself should be an object of awe, of wonder. We should marvel at the miraculous presence of life itself in animals, instead of carelessly denigrating it. This point was often emphasised by the great German theologian and Nobel Prize winner Albert Schweitzer in his philosophy of Reverence for Life. Schweitzer thought that our attitude to life in the modern era had brought about the moral catastrophes of the 20th century: it was our refusal to revere life that led us to commit such large-scale atrocities.
A third consideration is that we have no right to eat animals’ bodies. This point may seem initially counterintuitive, but this is something that we take for granted with regard to human bodies. We do not deem it morally acceptable to eat the flesh of a fellow human’s body. In fact, most people think that it isn’t morally permissible to eat the body of a cat or a dog either. If this is so, however, why should it then be morally permissible to eat the body of a cow, a pig or a lamb?
There is no justification for this double standard. In eating animal bodies, we fail to recognise their dignity and integrity. We fail to see that the body of a living being is not to be skinned, cut into pieces or eaten. It should be respected, even after their death.
These first three considerations do not in themselves tell us what humans’ relationships with animals ought to be like, other than that they should not be cruel and disrespectful of animals’ rights and dignity. An often-quoted passage from the Bible reads: ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”’ (Gen 1, 26). The idea of man’s God-given dominion over the animal kingdom has remained important in the Christian tradition of thought for centuries. Thomas Aquinas, the most influential Christian theologian of the mediaeval period, considered that animals’ purpose was to serve human use, whether it was by providing us meat, clothes or assistance in our work, and that “there is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is.” This view is today present in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a comprehensive presentation of Catholic teaching on faith and morals which serves as a textbook for the education of young Catholics. It unambiguously expresses the view of most Christians in our time: “God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence, it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2417)
This idea of a dominion that entitles humans to eat animals will seem absurd to many of our contemporaries. It will often be rejected as an instance of Christianity’s prideful anthropocentrism.
Yet, prominent modern Christian theologians, including Andrew Linzey, have sought to defend the idea of a dominion. They have argued that there may indeed be a special grace given by God to humans through the presence of the animal kingdom. But this grace certainly does not entail that we can treat animals with cruelty or irreverence: on their view, animals are a gift of love through which Christians are able to fully express their loving union with God. A dog’s enthusiastic greeting of their owner, the bond between a horse and their rider or a shepherd who knows his sheep all illustrate the loving relationship possible between man and animal. Linzey and others have thus reinterpreted the “dominion” mentioned in the book of Genesis and understood it in terms of the responsibility that humans have in building fruitful and loving relations with the animal kingdom.
This brings us to the fourth and perhaps most important consideration in favour of vegetarianism. In eating animals and in supporting the unjust practices which end in their slaughter, disregarding the value of their lives and their dignity, we create a rupture in our relationship with the animal kingdom. We fail to see that animals ought to be loved and cared for, and we reject God’s invitation for love in the presence of animals. We ultimately harm our own souls. This sentiment was perhaps best captured by St Isaac the Syrian, who was one of many Orthodox saints advocating vegetarianism: “What is a merciful heart? It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humankind, for the birds, for the animals, for the demons, for all that exists.” (St Isaac)
It is noteworthy that the Catholic Church appears to be moving towards the direction of advocating for vegetarianism. When Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope in 2015, he chose the name “Francis”, in reference to Saint Francis of Assisi, known for his peaceful and loving relationship with nature and the animal world. Pope Francis was not a vegetarian himself, but he wrote a famous encyclical – Laudato Si – calling for a transformation of human attitudes to the natural world and condemning the cruelty and exploitation to which animals are subjected.
It remains to be seen whether Pope Leo XIV, or other Christian religious leaders, will encourage a movement of Christian churches towards vegetarianism. Regardless, the recent centuries have also seen a gradual democratisation of the Church. It is more true than ever that the Church is what Christians make of it, and that Christians are invited to think critically about matters of faith and morals. In our era, their individual decisions will define the attitude of the Church towards animals.
Leave a comment