Animal souls?

[Ianjo99]

I realize that this topic has been beaten to death, and that a conclusion has probably been reached, but I need your personal opinions on the topic “Do animals have souls?”

I would like to thank you in advance for any responses. See, my friend is taking a philosophy class and needs a variety of opinions on the topic. Both her and I are Catholic and of the same views, so our view is fairly well-established. She recently moved to a different state, and her lack of friends prevents her from finding dissenting opinions or even a large number of opinions.

Any backing would be welcome, but seeing as how her topic revolves around differing opinions, a final answer does not need to be reached. Please help, a variety of opinions would be welcome! Any kind of Christian, non-Christian, or any other type would be welcome, if not encouraged!

God Bless!!

note: If a better board for this type of thing is availble, please let me know. She needs the opinions pretty soon, so the faster the better. I’m not sure if she needs names of the people who she asked, but providing you own would be greatly apprectiated. Nothing like an address or telephone number is needed, so please don’t think I’m trying to con you into giving me your names!

 

[JimG]

Defining a soul as the life-principle of a living being, yes, animals have souls. Their souls are material souls, which do not persist after death. Human souls are spiritual (immaterial) which do persist after death.

 

[crusader4life]

JimG:

Defining a soul as the life-principle of a living being, yes, animals have souls. Their souls are material souls, which do not persist after death. Human souls are spiritual (immaterial) which do persist after death.

True that!

 

[batteddy]

There is no reason, from pure observation, to believe that animals have souls NOR to believe that they do not.

But Divine Revelation has revealed to us that they do not.

Simply having a brain or seeming smart does not make one have a soul. Even if we discovered (or made) a life-form (or robot) more intellegent than us…there is no reason to believe one way or the other whether it has a soul or not until and unless the Church speaks on it.

I clearly have a soul. Souls being understood as the principle of consciousness.

But without a leap of faith, there is no reason to believe that ANYTHING else, even other humans, have souls…because I am obviously not conscious AS themself. They could just be like in a dream. Or unconscious robots following predetermined rules. It is only with sound philosophy and trust in God and His Church that I can trust that there is self-consciousness outside of MY self-awareness.

Our brains, as complex and multi-abled as they are, cannot make us conscious of ourselves as Self.

An eye cannot see itself, nor can a camera take a picture of itself, nor can any finite material substance fully know itself. Because can it know the part that is responsible for knowing the rest of itself? Sure, with another part…but than what is knowing THAT part?

For example, I have a thought in my brain. But what is conscious of that thought? Well some other part of my brain…the part that controls what is immediately in consciousness.

But then, what is conscious of that consciousness? And what is conscious of that consciousness of consciousness? And what is conscious of that consciousness of consciousness of consciousness? More parts of the brain? But then the brain must be infinitely large, which it is not…

Matter cannot be responsible for this self-awareness. It would perhaps require an infinite material substance…because to truly be conscious, for the word “conscious” to truly mean anything, you must be conscious of your consciousness, and conscious of your conciousness of your consciousness ad infinitum. You are not truly conscious of something, unless you are conscious that you are conscious of it, and then conscious of that consciousness, etc. It would require an infinitely large brain or an infinitely many acts of the brain to do it, or infinitely higher meta-brains.

So for us to be conscious (and your own consciousness is self-evident) there must be some principle that is not material. There must be something which we in Catholic theology call “spiritual”.

This spiritual principle, unexplainable by matter, is absolutely simple and allows us to carry out true consciousness (that is, consciousness of consciousness, etc…) without having an infinitely large brain.

In Catholic theology we say the soul is created in God’s image. And obviously, if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be able to do what it does.

The soul, like God, is able to have simple self-knowledge…without any infinite ammount of matter. In this way it sort of shares in his Simplicity and Infinity…but mainly it shares in his ability, not creatable from Matter, to have Self-Consciousness. Furthermore, it has the ability to Freely Will without any necessity nor arbitrary chance, but out of true Choice. And clearly, matter can only “choose” by the logical outcome of a necessary interplay of physical laws…or by pure chance. But Free Will is niether necessity nor arbitrary chance. Again, something in God’s image that only spiritual substance can have.

So the only way we can know if animals have souls, is if we told whether we do or not. Because sense perception and material evidence cannot tell us either way.

And we have been told that they do not!

 

[seeker63]

No one has told me anything to prove to me that animals do not have souls. I’ve certainly seen no Divine Revelation to that effect.

These arguments exist, so far as I can see, only to perpetuate treating animal cruelly, treating them as objects to use and abuse, to pervert the idea of man having dominion over animals into the idea that we should dominate them and be cruel to them.

I see more of the hand of God and face of Christ in the animals than I’ve ever been able to in flawed mankind. And to me any God who regards his ugly, sinful creatures and ignores his beautiful, sinless creatures would be unworthy of worship.

And also, I think it is arrogant for us to assume that we in 2005 know everything there is to know about the natural world and science. I mean, we’ve only been able to fly a century and only been in outer space a few decades. We cannot know if science will one day show us something about consciousness in animals or humans that we don’t already know .

And since I haven’t died yet I don’t know for sure whether or not animals souls exist after death. So all of this Philosophy/Theology 101 showboating aside, my heart, conscience, and eyes tell me animals have souls, and that’s what I’m gonna go with.

 

[felra]

seeker63:

No one has told me anything to prove to me that animals do not have souls. I’ve certainly seen no Divine Revelation to that effect.

These arguments exist, so far as I can see, only to perpetuate treating animal cruelly, treating them as objects to use and abuse, to pervert the idea of man having dominion over animals into the idea that we should dominate them and be cruel to them.

I see more of the hand of God and face of Christ in the animals than I’ve ever been able to in flawed mankind. And to me any God who regards his ugly, sinful creatures and ignores his beautiful, sinless creatures would be unworthy of worship.

And also, I think it is arrogant for us to assume that we in 2005 know everything there is to know about the natural world and science. I mean, we’ve only been able to fly a century and only been in outer space a few decades. We cannot know if science will one day show us something about consciousness in animals or humans that we don’t already know .

And since I haven’t died yet I don’t know for sure whether or not animals souls exist after death. So all of this Philosophy/Theology 101 showboating aside, my heart, conscience, and eyes tell me animals have souls, and that’s what I’m gonna go with.

Sentiments aside, there is a distinction between the theological terms of soul and spirit. JimG is quite right in his above post. Theology has already shown that in the order of creation, there is no animal heaven where animal forms of life dwell in eternity.

From Frank Sheed’s book “Theology for Beginners” 1958, 1976, 1981 (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur):

“This mingling of spirit and matter in human actions arises from a fact which distinguishes man’s spirit from all others. Ours is the only spirit which is also a soul–that is to say, the life principle in a body. God is a spirit, but has no body; the angels are spirits, but have no body. Only in man is spirit united with a body, animates the body, makes it to be a living body. Every living body–vegetable, lower animal, human–has a life principle, a soul.” (pp. 10).

“The souls, the life principles, of plants and animals produce no vital activities which rise above matter. They are marvellous enough, they animate the body. The soul is not in space at all; it animates the body by superiority of energy. There, then, stands man. His soul, because it is a soul, animates his body, as the soul of a lower animal animates its; but because man’s soul is a spirit, it has faculties of intellect and will by which it knows and loves as the animal cannot. Animal knowledge is only a faint parody of human knowledge. And so, with all its pathos, is animal love.” (pp. 60-61).

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,5 The human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude. --CCC

 

[seeker63]

None of this changes my mind.

 

[StratusRose]

I hope it’s not true because I’ll be very sad if I don’t see my past kitties and puppies in heaven.

 

[seeker63]

So why, for instance, did St. Francis of Assisi preach to the birds and other creatures? Was he exercising his speaking voice? I’m not suggesting he was trying to save their souls, because they didn’t need saving, as they’d never sinned, but what was the point of that exercise? What about St. Francis and the wolf? Or St. Anthony and the donkey that did reverence to the Host?Or are we to regard such stories as fairy tales?

Father John Hardon had an interesting take on the question of animals in heaven:

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/may-june99/Q&A.html

“Pets, as pets, do not go to Heaven. But animals and such like beings may be said to be brought to Heaven because, after the Last Day, they can serve as part of the joys of Heaven. In other words, animals and such like creatures may be said to be brought to Heaven to serve as part of our Heavenly joys. Clearly, we do not need pets to provide happiness in Heaven. But pets and such like creatures will be brought to Heaven to become part of our creaturely happiness in the Heavenly kingdom. Consequently, we may say that animals and such like creatures may be brought to Heaven by God to enable us to enjoy them as part of our creaturely happiness in Heavenly beatitude. Absolutely speaking, medals and such like religious articles may be part of Heavenly beatitude. Certainly, they do not serve the same purpose as other creatures do in Hea ven. However, while they do not serve the purpose which medals do on earth, they may nevertheless be part of God’s mysterious providence in our Heavenly beatitude.”

 

[seeker63]

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jul2003/Feature2.asp

 

[JimG]

StratusRose:

I hope it’s not true because I’ll be very sad if I don’t see my past kitties and puppies in heaven.

Just because animals don’t have immortal souls doesn’t mean that you won’t see them in heaven. If God can create them, he can re-create them and present them to you in heaven just as they were in life. To quote my wife: “If you want them in heaven, you can have them in heaven.”

 

[springbreeze]

JimG:

Just because animals don’t have immortal souls doesn’t mean that you won’t see them in heaven. If God can create them, he can re-create them and present them to you in heaven just as they were in life. To quote my wife: “If you want them in heaven, you can have them in heaven.”

Dear friend

I agree! God did not create anything for it to perish eternally! Animals have souls, though they are not spiritual souls, those souls are loved by God and He can redeem them also should He choose to.

I want all animals, all people, all things that God created and looked upon and said , ‘It is good’. (Not to mention I would love to be able to have a Bailey’s in moderation now and then ). Then again I won’t be rewarded with anything unless I suffer, sacrifice, pray, keep God’s Law, be detached from all things save God, fear God, be obedient, love God and all people, bear fruits, be merciful, be kind and do good works…I had better make a big effort and beg God’s graces and Mercy!

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[jegow]

seeker63:

No one has told me anything to prove to me that animals do not have souls. I’ve certainly seen no Divine Revelation to that effect.

And also, I think it is arrogant for us to assume that we in 2005 know everything there is to know about the natural world and science.

No one said that animals don’t have souls - just that they are different than ours’.

Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 344 BC, ended up writing something on the soul. It’s pretty good stuff. Not to be arrogant but here is something that was written over 2350 years ago about the nature of animal souls and our souls. Another reason why this work of his is so important is because of who would use it later on to explain the nature of different souls. None other than the Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas Aquinas.

It’s good reading!
etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8so/

In the Catechism [1257](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1257.htm’) it reads: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 **Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.**62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Here is an argument for why there are different souls. If Baptism is really necessary for salvation why don’t animals have the possibility to ask for the sacrament? Or is this because we have not figured out how to speak the animal languages? Or because they are not rational creatures and it is impossible?

Since Baptism is necessary for salvation and animals can’t legitimately ask for it do they all go to Hell? Hmmm?

Or is it because they do not have a spiritual/immaterial soul like we do?

 

[seeker63]

I submit that if a soul isn’t fallen in the first place, then salvation isn’t necessary. I’ve never heard of a sinful animal. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

[anarchocatholic]

Any Catholic vegetarians out there reading this?

 

[jegow]

seeker63:

I submit that if a soul isn’t fallen in the first place, then salvation isn’t necessary. I’ve never heard of a sinful animal. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Sorry, my point of putting that example up was, if animals had the same time type of souls that we have - would we not also be concerned for their salvation. I always think of the movie, ‘All Dogs Go To Heaven,’ and think it’s funny (since they go neither to heaven or hell).

 

[JimG]

(Not to mention I would love to be able to have a Bailey’s in moderation now and then ).

Ahh–well, most assuredly there will be Bailey’s in heaven.

I hope no mosquitoes or dinosaurs, though.

 

[seeker63]

I have a list of questions for when I hopefully make it there, such as why there are fleas, mosquitos, flies, etc.

 

[anarchocatholic]

jegow:

No one said that animals don’t have souls - just that they are different than ours’.

Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 344 BC, ended up writing something on the soul. It’s pretty good stuff. Not to be arrogant but here is something that was written over 2350 years ago about the nature of animal souls and our souls. Another reason why this work of his is so important is because of who would use it later on to explain the nature of different souls. None other than the Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas Aquinas.

It’s good reading!
etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8so/

In the Catechism [1257](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1257.htm’) it reads: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 **Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.**62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Here is an argument for why there are different souls. If Baptism is really necessary for salvation why don’t animals have the possibility to ask for the sacrament? Or is this because we have not figured out how to speak the animal languages? Or because they are not rational creatures and it is impossible?

Since Baptism is necessary for salvation and animals can’t legitimately ask for it do they all go to Hell? Hmmm?

Or is it because they do not have a spiritual/immaterial soul like we do?

Animals do not have “spiritual” souls? That makes no sense. Souls are by definition “spiritual.” The proper distinction is that human beings have rational souls and animals have animal souls. Which, to me, means that animals simply lack rationality, but nonetheless they are “sprititual” beings like humans are. Both souls are spiritual. In other words, the only real distinction is a heuristic one… Humans and animals have different sorts of souls because they are different sorts of creatures, one rational/human, the other animal. Other than that, nothing more can be said.

Animals, like humans, mirror the creator in some way, simply because they are creatures. While animals have not been involved in sin as humans have – rejection of the Creator – there is a sense in which ALL creation is fallen, and thus we must be concerned for the salvation of ALL of creation. Animals do not need to be reconciled to God in the same way that humans do, and in that sense they are already in “heaven” (living and deceased animals), but they are participants in salvation history just like human beings are.

Thus, to have an attitude that animals are here simply for humans to “use” is disordered. Animals were created for the creator, not for human beings. One possibile conclusion to draw, then, is that vegetarianism is a good spiritual practice which anticipates the eschaton.

A really great article along these lines is:
John Berkman, “The Consumption of Animals and the Catholic Tradition,” Logos (7:1), Winter 2004.
Berkman is a professor at the Catholic University of America.

Another good read is:
Matthew Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.