Animal Intelligence

[NeedsMercy]

Animal’s memory is limited as he stated, but also their behavior is conditioned, and not the same as humans, where memory is reasoned and pondered to help or in most cases, manipulate an image in the present and future.

Fr Groeschel was a clinical psychologist and his expertise on the subject is very credible.

Also, I believe he said their level of intelligence is no greater than a two to three year old infant. I’m going from memory here so, don’t freak out if I’m quoting him incorrectly.

Jim

Sorry, Jim. I’d have to have the quote and the context. Father Groeschel may be a **human **clinical psychologist, but he is neither a biologist nor an animal behaviorist. To me, he does not have expertise and is not convincing.

 

[andrewstx]

From experience I know that many animals are quite intelligent. Year ago I had a pug who was smart as a whip. He had a large vocabulary as well.

I only had to say "go"and he would get his leash and wait at the door. He loved to go for rides. I would say "hungry?"and he would stand at his bowl waiting. I would say “sleepies” and he would jump in the bed. I grieved when he got out of the yard and was hit by a car.

I can’t even begin to think of heaven without our beloved pets. There is a poem called “Rainbow Bridge” that expresses my feelings about pets and heaven.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sorry, Jim. I’d have to have the quote and the context. Father Groeschel may be a **human **clinical psychologist, but he is neither a biologist nor an animal behaviorist. To me, he does not have expertise and is not convincing.

Well, unfortunately, he made the statement when he still had a program on EWTN.

Can’t provide the source, it doesn’t exist unless they have past programs in archive available.

Jim

 

[GEddie]

Why don’t we just admit that Our LORD and HIS Church have left the issue of animal afterlife open?

All we know is:

1. All moving beings have soul/anima (which is why we speak of being “animated” and of dead organisms as inanimate);
2. Animals possess varying degrees of intelligence;
3. However, only human beings have the rational soul/cognitive mind, which the Church identifies with the human soul.
4. Our LORD nor His disciples ever preached on this matter.

Personally, as much as I love my dog, and hope she would make it into Heaven, I doubt she would be foremost in my mind once I had suffered the pains of death and then awakened in our LORD’s arms.

I also know that I cannot live long enough to outthink the Church’s 1900 years of professional philosophers.

Animal afterlife is an open question.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The Church’s position is pure speculation. It is their opinion, and opinion only. My opinion is no more wrong nor no more right than theirs. If the Church’s position is not speculation, please give me their basis for the position.

Understand that I am not saying that the souls of animals are the same as those of humans. I am saying that they are more than what the Church currently says they are.

I’m not “attacking the Church”.

I am not aware of any “opinions” the Church has that are merely on the level of our own opinions, and that we are free to discard if we dislike.

I am aware of authoritative Church teachings, which we are bound to follow. I am aware of opinions widely held by members of Church but which are not authoritative Church teaching, and cannot really be said to be opinions of the Church. I am aware of many things the Church remains silent on. It is unclear to me where exactly you think the statement “animals don’t go to heaven” lies - are you saying that the Church officially says this, but that you’re ignoring it; or are you saying that the Church does not officially say this even though many Catholics tend to think so, and that those Catholics are wrong?

If the first, you may want to reexamine your position, if the second, I suspect that you are incorrect - but frankly the question of whether animals go to heaven has always seemed fairly unimportant to me, and in either case I’ve never understood why some so vehemently think that it must be so.

Here are a few incontrovertible facts that we know:

1. Human souls are immortal.
2. Heaven contains everything that is necessary to make any human completely happy.
3. God is all that is necessary for any human to be completely happy.

If you can’t even imagine that your pet wouldn’t be in heaven, it is probably a good idea to spend some time contemplating the absolute goodness of God, and how insignificant any animal, any beloved pet - even any human or angel is - in comparison. We will be perfectly happy in heaven. If this is possible without the presence of our close brother who at the end of his life fell into grave sin and chose hell as his destination, then it is certainly possible without our pet, however beloved they may have been.

Then again, if it turns out the commonly held opinion that animals don’t go to heaven is no more than that, and that there are dogs in heaven, that’s great. But if it turns out that there are no dogs in heaven, that’s also great. Whichever way things are is the best way that things could be - this is heaven we’re talking about. This is not, I think, something that it is worth getting worked up about.

 

[thistle]

The Church’s position is pure speculation. It is their opinion, and opinion only. My opinion is no more wrong nor no more right than theirs. If the Church’s position is not speculation, please give me their basis for the position.

Understand that I am not saying that the souls of animals are the same as those of humans. I am saying that they are more than what the Church currently says they are.

I’m not “attacking the Church”.

It is not a Church opinion. It is a Church teaching which as a Catholic you and I are BOUND to accept. Knowing a Church teaching and rejecting it is a mortal sin.
In case you have forgotten, Church teachings have the full authority of God supporting them!

 

[NeedsMercy]

It is not a Church opinion. It is a Church teaching which as a Catholic you and I are BOUND to accept. Knowing a Church teaching and rejecting it is a mortal sin.
In case you have forgotten, Church teachings have the full authority of God supporting them!

In no document of the Catholic Church do you see the statement that animals do not have immortal souls. It’s a long held belief based on the conglomeration of some rather questionable and cruel opinions from St. Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas. I doubt very much that God supports some of the nonsense they spewed about animals.

I’ve already been called a heretic in this thread, and now I’m guilty of mortal sin. Won’t be the first time that I’ve been insulted. Probably won’t be the last. Ho-hum :yawn:

 

[Faith1960]

The Latin word for soul is anima. By definition, an “animal” is a being possessing a soul.

This is a natural soul, or psyche in Greek. As such, it supports neither a cognitive mind nor the capacity for everlasting life.

Because the natural soul (psyche) gives rise to natural life, the Greek term for our bodies (psychikon soma) is translated into English as “natural body.” The life of our bodies is identical to the life of animals.

But as human beings, our soul is also spiritual, and therefore resides the human stuff: a rational mind and the prospect for everlasting life.

ICXC NIKA.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

 

[GEddie]

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

YVW, Amiga

 

[Faith1960]

A few seconds into the future is still the future. But I won’t argue the point. BTW, did you know how much Pavlov tortured his animals?

Instinct accounts for a very small percentage of animal behavior. If animals were incapable of learning from memory, they would never survive.

What about the bee dances? The bees that know the location of pollen will dance in a pattern which indicates the location to the other bees. Memory and learning.

It’s less of a “stretch” to say that animals have immortal souls than it is to say that they don’t! And you and the Church know, without a doubt, that animals DO NOT have immortal souls based on…what? Please enlighten me.

That you are calling me a heretic is telling. You cannot support the Magisterium’s teaching in this area, so you say I am wrong and that I am a heretic. If it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead.

Yes, man is responsible for many breeds of dogs. It is only now that we are learning that all this genetic manipulation is causing more and more dogs that are handicapped and sick.

I thank God every day for His creation of the animals and plants and rocks, too. I don’t see what is so extreme about believing their souls are more like ours than we think.

From experience I know that many animals are quite intelligent. Year ago I had a pug who was smart as a whip. He had a large vocabulary as well.

I only had to say "go"and he would get his leash and wait at the door. He loved to go for rides. I would say "hungry?"and he would stand at his bowl waiting. I would say “sleepies” and he would jump in the bed. I grieved when he got out of the yard and was hit by a car.

I can’t even begin to think of heaven without our beloved pets. There is a poem called “Rainbow Bridge” that expresses my feelings about pets and heaven.

I’m sorry for your loss. My first dog died when I was 16 and I’m 53 now. I still miss her. I don’t know if dogs go to heaven or not but I’d like to think they do.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I am not aware of any “opinions” the Church has that are merely on the level of our own opinions, and that we are free to discard if we dislike.

I’m glad to be the first to enlighten you of one!

I am aware of authoritative Church teachings, which we are bound to follow. I am aware of opinions widely held by members of Church but which are not authoritative Church teaching, and cannot really be said to be opinions of the Church. I am aware of many things the Church remains silent on. It is unclear to me where exactly you think the statement “animals don’t go to heaven” lies - are you saying that the Church officially says this, but that you’re ignoring it; or are you saying that the Church does not officially say this even though many Catholics tend to think so, and that those Catholics are wrong?

Let’s go back to the link in post #9:

catholic.com/quickquestio…e-human-beings

I specifically outline my problems with this article in my earlier post #13. No need to repeat.

If the first, you may want to reexamine your position, if the second, I suspect that you are incorrect - but frankly the question of whether animals go to heaven has always seemed fairly unimportant to me, and in either case I’ve never understood why some so vehemently think that it must be so.

That you think so little of a major part of God’s creation, who give glory to Him in their own way, is very sad, and painful to me in a way that I cannot explain.

Here are a few incontrovertible facts that we know:

1. Human souls are immortal.
   2) Heaven contains everything that is necessary to make any human completely happy.
2. God is all that is necessary for any human to be completely happy.

You are really supporting what I’m saying!

If you can’t even imagine that your pet wouldn’t be in heaven, it is probably a good idea to spend some time contemplating the absolute goodness of God, and how insignificant any animal, any beloved pet - even any human or angel is - in comparison.

We will be perfectly happy in heaven. If this is possible without the presence of our close brother who at the end of his life fell into grave sin and chose hell as his destination, then it is certainly possible without our pet, however beloved they may have been.

Then again, if it turns out the commonly held opinion that animals don’t go to heaven is no more than that, and that there are dogs in heaven, that’s great. But if it turns out that there are no dogs in heaven, that’s also great. Whichever way things are is the best way that things could be - this is heaven we’re talking about. This is not, I think, something that it is worth getting worked up about.

I spend a great deal of time contemplating the absolute goodness of God as manifested in His creation of the animals. Some may see His goodness in helping the poor, some may see His goodness in tending to the sick, some see it absolving sins. I don’t think I’m wasting my time trying to convince people that God’s love encompasses ALL of His creation and that this love does not die with the death of the animal or plant. I re-iterate Luke: God does not forget the sparrows. They are not insignificant to Him; therefore, they will not be insignificant to me. And this is why I think that it IS “worth getting worked up about”.

 

[thistle]

I’m glad to be the first to enlighten you of one!

Let’s go back to the link in post #9:

catholic.com/quickquestio…e-human-beings

I specifically outline my problems with this article in my earlier post #13. No need to repeat.

That you think so little of a major part of God’s creation, who give glory to Him in their own way, is very sad, and painful to me in a way that I cannot explain.

You are really supporting what I’m saying!

I spend a great deal of time contemplating the absolute goodness of God as manifested in His creation of the animals. Some may see His goodness in helping the poor, some may see His goodness in tending to the sick, some see it absolving sins. I don’t think I’m wasting my time trying to convince people that God’s love encompasses ALL of His creation and that this love does not die with the death of the animal or plant. I re-iterate Luke: God does not forget the sparrows. They are not insignificant to Him; therefore, they will not be insignificant to me. And this is why I think that it IS “worth getting worked up about”.

While animals are not unimportant they are most certainly lesser creatures than humans. They are not equal to humans.
They do not have an immortal soul. Their souls cease to exist when they die. No immortal souls means no Heaven for them.
We are allowed to make use of animals as we see fit, provided no unnecessary suffering is caused to them).
We are even allowed to use them in medical and scientific experiments if it is for the benefit of the health of humans.
I have no problem with any of that.

 

[Jon_S_1]

In no document of the Catholic Church do you see the statement that animals do not have immortal souls. It’s a long held belief based on the conglomeration of some rather questionable and cruel opinions from St. Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas. I doubt very much that God supports some of the nonsense they spewed about animals.

I’ve already been called a heretic in this thread, and now I’m guilty of mortal sin. Won’t be the first time that I’ve been insulted. Probably won’t be the last. Ho-hum :yawn:

I understand why people want animals to go to heaven. They bring us comfort and joy here on earth.

Just remember the comfort and joy of Christ in the Beatific Vision is infinitely better. You won’t need animals there.

IMO (and I think in line with the church) Animals, are not made in the image of God, they were not breathed on by God in the garden which is how we got our eternal soul.

Further, animals are carnal and just give in to their desires (without training ) and really are an example of what a totally depraved human would be like.

That said,

The new heaven and new earth after the final judgement when we reunite with our resurrected bodies, I’m sure will have lots of animals for us!

 

[NeedsMercy]

While animals are not unimportant they are most certainly lesser creatures than humans. They are not equal to humans.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that animals were equal to, or greater than humans. If I did, show me where.

They do not have an immortal soul. Their souls cease to exist when they die. No immortal souls means no Heaven for them.

Speculation based upon misguided opinions, as I posted earlier.

We are allowed to make use of animals as we see fit, provided no unnecessary suffering is caused to them).

Then, in accordance with what you say is Church teaching, you must become a vegan and wear no animal products like wool or leather. All these industries cause unnecessary suffering. If you want to see the graphic footage, I will provide you some links.

We are even allowed to use them in medical and scientific experiments if it is for the benefit of the health of humans.

From the CCC (emphasis mine):

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.

Oh, dear. Here we go again. Since most of what is passing for “research” today is nothing more than unnecessary animal cruelty, by the Church’s teaching, experimentation would be—what? A mortal sin?

I have no problem with any of that.

I do.

 

[GEddie]

I am not EVER becoming a vegan, and the Church CANNOT teach that, for the simple reason that our LORD was never a vegan. So to morally require that would be to try to improve upon HIM. Not a great idea.

ICXC NIKA

 

[NeedsMercy]

I understand why people want animals to go to heaven. They bring us comfort and joy here on earth.

Just remember the comfort and joy of Christ in the Beatific Vision is infinitely better. You won’t need animals there.

True. You won’t need animals. But you won’t need your parents, spouse or children, either. So does that mean that we’ll all be separated from our families, never to see them again?

IMO (and I think in line with the church) Animals, are not made in the image of God, they were not breathed on by God in the garden which is how we got our eternal soul.

How many times do I have to say this? I never said that animals are made in God’s image. If I did, show me where. When you are talking about being “breathed on by God”, does the breath indicate the imposition of a soul or the creative act itself?

Further, animals are carnal and just give in to their desires (without training ) and really are an example of what a totally depraved human would be like.

Huh???

That said,

The new heaven and new earth after the final judgement when we reunite with our resurrected bodies, I’m sure will have lots of animals for us!

If you truly believe this, then you, too, are in conflict with the current Church teaching. Remember, the Church believes that animal souls die at the death of the animal body. If the animal soul dies, there can be no re-uniting with the resurrected animal body.

 

[Jon_S_1]

True. You won’t need animals. But you won’t need your parents, spouse or children, either. So does that mean that we’ll all be separated from our families, never to see them again?

Possibly. But I believe the communion of saints teaches us that God has a unique plan for saints in heaven where we interact with each other in some way.

How many times do I have to say this? I never said that animals are made in God’s image. If I did, show me where. When you are talking about being “breathed on by God”, does the breath indicate the imposition of a soul or the creative act itself?

Man was already created when God breathed on him. Man was created in a similar state as animals until this unique act by God.

If you truly believe this, then you, too, are in conflict with the current Church teaching. Remember, the Church believes that animal souls die at the death of the animal body. If the animal soul dies, there can be no re-uniting with the resurrected animal body.

I meant newly created animals not resurrected.

 

[GEddie]

How many times do I have to say this? I never said that animals are made in God’s image. If I did, show me where. When you are talking about being “breathed on by God”, does the breath indicate the imposition of a soul or the creative act itself?

My (average sinner’s) understanding of this question is that God created the body of Adam; then breathed into his nose, and Adam “became a living soul.”

It seems therefore that this breathing infused a soul.

If you truly believe this, then you, too, are in conflict with the current Church teaching. Remember, the Church believes that animal souls die at the death of the animal body. If the animal soul dies, there can be no re-uniting with the resurrected animal body.

Not really. The NE could have animals alive that never lived upon our earth; God could make them new. This has no connection with an an

 

[GEddie]

How many times do I have to say this? I never said that animals are made in God’s image. If I did, show me where. When you are talking about being “breathed on by God”, does the breath indicate the imposition of a soul or the creative act itself?

My (average sinner’s) understanding of this question is that God created the body of Adam; then breathed into his nose, and Adam “became a living soul.”

It seems therefore that this breathing infused a soul.

If you truly believe this, then you, too, are in conflict with the current Church teaching. Remember, the Church believes that animal souls die at the death of the animal body. If the animal soul dies, there can be no re-uniting with the resurrected animal body.

Not really. The NE could have animals alive that never lived upon our earth; God could make them new. This has no connection with an an animal afterlife.

ICXC NIKA

 

[NeedsMercy]

I am not EVER becoming a vegan, and the Church CANNOT teach that, for the simple reason that our LORD was never a vegan. So to morally require that would be to try to improve upon HIM. Not a great idea.

ICXC NIKA

Ummm, okay. Is someone forcing you to become vegan? I’m not. If you think I did, show me where.

Why can’t the Church support veganism? None of us have a clue whether or not Christ was a vegan or not. In fact, it’s funny that you mention that, because there are some theologians that believe that He very well have been a vegan and that meat/fish eating was for the sake of His followers, and not for his own desire to do so. Kinda blows the mind, doesn’t it?