With Every Living Creature That Is with You: Exploring Relational Ontology and Non-Human Animals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
With Every Living Creature that is with You: Exploring Relational Ontology and Non-Human Animals by Allison Marie Covey A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Regis College and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College. © Copyright by Allison Marie Covey, 2020 With Every Living Creature that is with You: Exploring Relational Ontology and Non-Human Animals Allison Marie Covey Doctor of Philosophy University of St. Michael’s College 2020 Abstract Despite the progressive contributions of Laudato Si’, Catholic theology today often fails to differentiate between non-human animals, inanimate objects, and nature broadly defined. The only line drawn with consistency is that between humanity and the rest of Creation. Anthropocentric instrumentalism has edged out a Trinitarian relational ontology of non-human Creation rooted in both Scripture and Tradition. This dissertation argues that the anthropocentric instrumentalisation of non-human Creation is not a necessary nor authentic position of the Christian faith. It proposes instead that Christianity’s failure to recognise Creation’s inherent goodness and theocentric telos has been the result of developments along the West’s passage into modernity. A restoration of Christianity’s pre-modern sense of theocentric relationality is both possible and desirable for countering modernity’s corruption of Creation theology and theological anthropology. This dissertation formulates, from the existing tradition, a consistent and Trinitarian ontology of non-human animals that acknowledges them as beings existing for and in loving relationship with the common Creator. It argues that the telos of non-human animals is not service to humankind but fulfillment in relationship with the Trinity, with humanity, and with the whole of Creation. Non-human animals must be recognised as legitimate Others, participants in the cosmic liturgy, rather than objects to be used by humanity on its singular quest toward God. ii They are intrinsically good, their goodness arising from their relationship with the Triune God on Whom the ontological relationality of all of Creation is based and toward Whom it is ordered. The inherent relationality of being renders impossible an authentic anthropology that fails to take into account the non-human members of Creation with which and through which humanity exists. Likewise, an ontology of non-human animals cannot be articulated without reference to relationality, as their existence is inextricable from the existence of all other beings, both earthly and divine. iii Table of Contents 0. INTRODUCTION 0.1 The Church Striving to Image God in a Trinitarian Key ...........................1 0.2 Supplanting Anthropocentric Instrumentalism ..........................................3 0.3 Challenges to the Theological and Moral Standing of Other Animals ......6 0.4 Resources for the Development of a Trinitarian Relational Ontology .......7 0.5 The Argumentative Structure of This Project ..........................................10 0.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................14 I. CRITIQUING ANTHROPOCENTRIC INSTRUMENTALISM 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................16 1.1.1 What Is Anthropocentric Instrumentalism ...............................................17 1.1.2 Anthropocentric Instrumentalism in Ritual and Doctrine ........................18 1.2 The Picture Thus Far ................................................................................22 1.2.1 A Lacuna in Theology ..............................................................................22 1.2.2 Magisterial Inroads ...................................................................................24 1.3 The Historical Roots of Anthropocentric Instrumentalism ......................29 1.3.1 Interpretations of Dominion .....................................................................30 1.3.2 The Rise of Metaphysical Dualism, Scientific Empiricism, and Human Exceptionalism ..............................................................................37 1.3.3 Conflation of the Imago Dei and Biology ..................................................46 1.4 Systematic Theology as Corrective ..........................................................51 1.4.1 Exegesis Alone as Insufficient Response .................................................54 1.4.2 Ethics Alone as Insufficient Motivation ...................................................58 1.4.3 Correcting Eco-Theology’s Category Mistake .........................................60 1.5 Re-visioning the Imago Dei .....................................................................64 1.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................72 II. THE GOODNESS OF CREATION IN HANS URS VON BALTHASAR 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................74 2.2 Who Is the Human ....................................................................................76 2.2.1 Theological Personhood ...........................................................................80 2.2.2 Freedom as Imago Dei .............................................................................87 2.3 What Is Creation .......................................................................................92 2.3.1 Why Did God Create the World? Creation as Gift .................................98 2.3.2 Beauty in Non-Human Creation: The Form of Nature as Divine Self-Expression ........................................................................................104 2.4 Eschatological Hope for Non-Human Creation .....................................111 2.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................................116 iv III. THE RELATIONAL ONTOLOGY OF METROPOLITAN JOHN ZIZIOULAS 3.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................118 3.2 Relational Personhood .........................................................................................121 3.2.1 Personhood in the Trinity .......................................................................121 3.2.2 Questions of Ontological Primary ..........................................................123 3.2.3 The Personhood of Created Beings ........................................................132 3.3 Connecting to How God Is .....................................................................138 3.3.1 The Priesthood of Humanity ..................................................................141 3.3.2 The Telos of Non-Human Creation ........................................................147 3.4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................152 IV. BEYOND ANTHROPOCENTRIC INSTRUMENTALISM: NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................154 4.2 Andrew Linzey: Beginning the Conversation ........................................156 4.2.1 Theos-Rights and Theocentricity ...........................................................160 4.2.2 Reinterpreting the Incarnation in Liberation Theology ..........................164 4.2.3 Service as Human Uniqueness ...............................................................167 4.2.4 Creation's Absent Praise .........................................................................171 4.2.5 The Role of the Incarnation ....................................................................173 4.3 David Clough: Laying a Systematic Foundation ...................................174 4.3.1 Anthropocentrisms .................................................................................176 4.3.2 Creation & Creaturely Difference ..........................................................178 4.3.3 Creaturely Incarnation ............................................................................181 4.3.4 Eco-Theology's Dilemma .......................................................................183 4.3.5 The Doctrine of God ...............................................................................185 4.4 Celia Deane-Drummond: Evolutionary Christology ..............................186 4.4.1 Imago Dei, Image-Bearing, and Graced Nature .....................................188 4.4.2 Cosmic Liturgy and Performance ...........................................................192 4.4.3 Evolved Relationality .............................................................................194 4.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................................196 V. LIVING IMAGO TRINITATIS: A RELATIONAL ETHIC FOR THE PRIESTS OF CREATION 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................200 5.2 Animals and Christian Moral Theology .................................................201 5.3 Recognising a Moral Question about Other Animals ............................204 5.4 Identifying a Starting Point for Moral Theology ....................................209 5.4.1 Relationality as an Alternative Starting Point