I don’t know what, if any, name the neighbors had given “LGN”: pronounced “Elgin”.
I’m not even sure that the little grey cat belonged to our neighbors at 1010. But she, or possibly he, came from their yard very regularly when my father and I were outside and near the front of the house.
Now, cats act like cats: but they also have personalities. They can act aloof, hostile, seemingly-oblivious, vaguely interested in you: or possibly in something behind you.
But I have never met a cat as delighted to see me, or maybe it was my father, as Elgin.
He, or possibly she, would approach us at something a tad faster than a cat’s usual walk.
She, or possibly he, would have managed more speed, if — I’ll skip the he/she thing and arbitrarily use “she” — she’d have been marginally faster if she hadn’t been rubbing her left, then right, cheek on the grass as she approached.
I’ve never seen a cat other than Elgin do that.
Once near our feet, she’d stick around for behind-the-ear skritches and other non-verbal greetings from us. Being us, my father and I would also make appropriate vocal greetings.
These conversations with Elgin didn’t last long. At some point she’d head back to the yard north of 1010, after which my father and I would get on with whatever we’d been doing.
To my knowledge, Elgin never followed us back to the door of 1010, or indicated an interest in anything other than friendly greetings.
Finally, about calling her “Elgin”, or LGN. Elgin was a distinctly small cat: ‘kitten-size’, but didn’t grow in the time we knew her. She was also gray, so my father called her our LGN, or Little Grey Neighbor.
Ethics and Rules That Make Sense
This year’s SNAFU could be worse,
and that’s another topic. Topics.
My father and I have a common interest in and affection for animals. He’s long-since deceased, but I’m using present tense because — that’s a discussion for another time, involving last things1 and a whole mess of other topics.
How I feel about animals matters, to me, but what matters a great deal more is what we’re told about how we’re supposed to treat them. That brings me to ideas like ethics, rules, and why I don’t trust strong feelings: mine, or those expressed by others. All of which deserves much more time and attention than I’ve got this week.
Old Rules, and Reminders
A judicial discussion in Wonderland.
(Hierarchy of authority is a topic for another day.)
So I’ll discuss, briefly, what the Church says about animals and how we should treat them.
Oddly enough, animal welfare connects with one of the Decalogue’s rules.
“You shall not steal.”
(Exodus 20:15) (and see Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:19)
It’s been years since I saw a particular single-panel cartoon showing Moses on Mount Sinai.
Looking at the words “don’t be a jerk” on a stone tablet, Moses tells God, “trust me, you need to be more specific”.
That’s not how we got the Decalogue, but the cartoon made a point. Many, maybe most, of us need to be told, or at least reminded, how the basics, like “do not steal”, affect how we should act.
Like this bit —
“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out grain.”
(Deuteronomy 25:5)
Loving Animals, But Loving People More
Subtle, no. But Hogarth has a point.
Not muzzling an ox may have profound metaphoric and spiritual significance.
But I figure there’s also a more obvious meaning, beyond the example given: don’t mistreat animals.
Upwards of two and a half millennia later, treating animals humanely is still a good idea.
Which is why a discussion of “you shall not steal” includes this:
“2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
“2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
“2417 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. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
“2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.“
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Respect for the integrity of creation)
[emphasis mine]
As usual, I’ve talked about this sort of thing before:
- “Freckles is a Girl: Remembering a Dog Next Door” (December 6, 2025)
- “Good Night, Boots” (June 14, 2025)
- “A Cat, a Dog, and a Reflective Chain-Link Fence” (April 5, 2025)
- “The Grand Canyon, the Petrified Forest, and the Big Picture” (March 22, 2025)
- “Animals, Consciousness, and Conscience” (June 29, 2024)
- Science, Attitudes, and Conscious Animals
- Of Mice and Men and Little Albert (ethics, emotions, and anthropomorphism)
- “Little Less Than a God” — (accepting who and what we are)
1 Last things, briefly:
“1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. the parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul -a destiny which can be different for some and for others.
“1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,-or immediate and everlasting damnation.
At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.
(St. John of the Cross, Dichos 64.)(Catechism of the Catholic Church)
