>From  "George R. Hoelzeman" <[log in to unmask]>
Forwarded to list by Nathan Nettleton because it looked like it had only come
to two of us. Sorry if I'm wrong. NN

I have to agree with Doug - the very idea of creating "liturgies for
animals" is an absurd insult to the meaning and function of any true
liturgy, which in essence is a transcending (Sacramental) engagement with
God.  While it is true that during the Middle Ages the Church developed
blessings, etc. for animals (and Francis allegedly "preached" to the
animals, these examples do not justify the time and energy which is devoted
to many of the critter cares expressed in some aspects of this thread.

The blessing of animals was part of a broader concept of sanctifying which
held (and holds) that anything - water, stone, wood, metal, animals, etc. -
can be set apart for the service of God.  In that respect, the blessing on
animals was the result of human dependence on these animals for life or
livlihood.  The same help for blessings of crops, farm implements, houses,
etc.

Francis' "preaching" to animals was not animal evangelization, as if they
had an immortal soul in need of redemption (Aquinas, Abelard, Albertus
Magnus, all take up the issue of animal souls).  Rather, it is a
hagiographical and didactic legend in which Francis' gesture is a type of
prophetic witness.  The human residents of the local village refuse to hear
his proclaimation of Christ, so he turns to the "dumb animals" who, even
without reason and souls to save, are depicted as attentive to his words.

Perhaps, if you had a pastoral situation where a person, couple, or family
were so wrapped up in a family pet that they just couldn't deal with it,
you could justify some sort of ritual gesture to help them cope - but I
would also suggest therapy.  Environmental concerns can be addressed
adequately with other, well established, rites, which do not replace the
Creator with the creature (as Doug correctly asserts) 

                    "Liturgy for the Burial of a Dog":

Opening:  Presider enters living room and proclaims: "The Dog is Dead"
		All respond:  "Augh"
		Opening Prayer:  "Please, Daddy, can we get another one?
	   Presider's response: "We'll See"

Procession:  Presider goes to tool shed, opens door, retrieves sacred shovel.
	       Acolyte (or presider) retrieves dog from pen (road, driveway,
neighbor's yard, cow pasture or chicken coop).  May wrap in grocery bag
shroud/pall.

Graveside:    Presider digs hole, utters words expressing opinions about
dog, weather, work or manner of dog's demise.
		Acolyte (or presider) places (drops, rolls, etc.) dog into hole.

		Presider fill hole back up.

Closing Prayer:  Presider: "Well, there it is" (or similar words of
commendation).
			Presider (to Acolyte): "Go now, and purify (clean out) the pen."
		Response: "Can I do it later, 'X-files" are on in 10 minutes"
		Presider responds at length to the extent that he is able.

A few days later there may be other rituals, depending on the demand for a
new dog or adequacy of Graveside Service. 

In nomine Domine

George R. Hoelzeman (who does not currently have a dog)


At 06:21 PM 6/23/1998 +1000, you wrote:
>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: from out4.ibm.net by webtime.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
>	id FAA08014; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05:03:21 +1000
>Received: from default (slip129-37-50-231.ca.us.ibm.net [129.37.50.231])
by out4.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA68456 for
<[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 19:00:08 GMT
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:59:18 -0400
>From: doug short <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Organization: fair haven
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Praying for animals
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>My problem with this discussion is that it follows the lead of the
>pantheists, et. al. who focus their attention on the creation instead of
>its creator.
>
>Whenever David sings his psalms praising God's creation, it is always
>the means by which he draws the reader/listner into a celebration of
>God.  Paul tells us that God's eternal power is made known through what
>He has created.  
>
>I may see an eagle soaring through the sky and, in my amazement, offer a
>prayer of praise to the Lord- and that would be the reaction that the
>Lord would desire.  For me to, instead, pray for the eagle itself,
>misses the whole point of creation.  
>
>In response to the funeral liturgies for the animals, C.S. Lewis'
>chapter on "Animal Pain" in his book "The Problem of Pain" is very
>helpful.  For example, he states:
>
>"The real difficulty about supposing most animals to be immortal is that
>immortality has almost no meaning for a creature which is not
>'conscious' in the sense explained above (you'll have to read the book
>for that one) If the life of a newt is merely a succession of
>sensations, what should we mean by saying that God may recall to life
>the newt that died today?  It would not recognize itself as the same
>newt; the pleasant sensations of any other newt that lived after its
>death would be just as much, or just as little, a recompense for its
>earthly sufferings (if any) as those of its resurrected- I was going to
>say 'self' but the whole point is that the newt probably has no self."
>
>It seems to me that the Lord would be most pleased if we would turn our
>attention to Him and proclaiming His majesty and lead His people into
>such worship rather than us praising our emotional ties to His creation
>and leading His people to focus on it as well.
>
>Doug
>


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%