Florida Catholic | Editorial

Moral calculus skewed in Vick’s dogfighting case

PETER FINNEY JR. | EXECUTIVE EDITOR CLARION HERALD

Published: 09.14.07

It is difficult to imagine a more grisly story: Michael Vick, arguably the most athletic quarterback in NFL history, used some of his millions to bankroll a dogfighting and gambling enterprise, Bad Newz Kennels, in which losing dogs either died in the competitive pit or were electrocuted, hanged, drowned or shot.

A country of animal lovers recoiled in righteous indignation. Vick’s guilty plea to several dogfighting charges could mean he will spend two years behind bars, followed by a one-year NFL suspension. In hopes of preserving any possibility of ever playing football again, Vick claims never to have gambled personally on the matches held at his Virginia house.

By the time a contrite Vick trades in his orange jumpsuit and completes his expected NFL-imposed exile, he would be 30 or 31, perhaps chastened and changed, but certainly still chased.

The blitz won’t stop. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has the collective memory of an elephant and the heart of a meter maid, and forgiveness doesn’t appear on its agenda.

What intrigues me most about the nation’s reaction to Vick’s crimes is the skewed moral calculus — really, moral blindness that afflicts so many who are outraged by animal cruelty — and who wouldn’t be? — but whose consciences are not troubled in the least by the destruction of innocent, unborn human life.

West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, the senior member of the U.S. Senate who is known for his devotion to animals, passionately condemned dogfighting on the Senate floor when the Vick indictment was handed down.

“Barbaric!” Byrd shouted, pumping his fist. “Let that word resound from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, and valley to valley across the broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who’d be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric! ... I am confident that the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of the sick and brutal people who hold God’s creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt.”

Apparently, the 4,000 unborn humans whose lives are snuffed out daily in the U.S. through abortion don’t meet Byrd’s litmus test as “God’s creatures” whose lives should be protected.

Byrd voted for a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S.

It’s also fascinating to examine the moral gymnastics exhibited by PETA. On its Web site (www.peta.org), the organization has a link for frequently asked questions.

“Q: Where does the animal rights movement stand on abortion?

“A: There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, the animal rights movement has no official position on abortion.”

That means one thing: Punt the pigskin. (Relax, PETA will get to the football soon enough.)

How can dogs being abused provoke such anger in the same people who see no similar outrage in abortion? As Catholics, we have a moral obligation to help others correctly form their consciences. The Vick tragedy makes this clear.

The sad thing is a dog may be man’s best friend, but too many in America, through their blindness or apathy, have become man’s worst enemy.

This commentary will appear in the Sept. 15 issue of the Clarion Herald, newspaper of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Finney is the paper’s executive editor.

Return to the Florida Catholic Home Page