Catholic stance on spiritual connection to nature?

[franklinstower]

i do believe animals sin and love and grow spiritually, have thoughts, reason and have a kind of will. i think they meditate and pray without language and are in some way swept up in salvation, probably tied to our own as the head of creation.

i dont see much difference between the healing and growth of an abused dog and the healing and growth of an abused human being. the human is more complex but the basic elements of dealing with trauma and growing towards trust and love over time are the same…

animals and plants having souls or not having souls in no way directly effects our salvation. it is an area the church could easily be wrong about and still be The Church of Christ.

your tone seems a bit snarky. i have no interest in that kind of conversation. if what i am speaking of bothers you i would ask you not to reply anymore. i want to have charitable conversations.

 

[Gorgias]

your tone seems a bit snarky.

Nope. Not trying to snark. Asking honest questions. (And, actually, I’m surprised that you believe that animals sin! I wasn’t expecting that answer!)

if what i am speaking of bothers you i would ask you not to reply anymore.

It doesn’t bother me. I just disagree. And I ask questions that present challenges to your assertions. That doesn’t make the conversation ‘uncharitable’, does it?

animals and plants having souls or not having souls in no way directly effects our salvation. it is an area the church could easily be wrong about and still be The Church of Christ.

Not quite, I don’t think. If the Church gets the teaching of who is made in the imago Dei wrong, then we can have no confidence that it can get anything right, don’t you think?

 

[franklinstower]

to your last point. no i don’t think that follows in any way that is necessary. i don’t think the church got anything wrong to do with human persons. however i think there is a vast amount of area between animals being soulless beings and being persons in the exact sense that we are. there seems to me to be a lot of room in there.

the Church has been given what is necessary for our salvation, the salvation of the human race. i see no reason to believe that other beings such as animals have their own path to follow and that is unfolding.

just spit baling here but i would suspect that animals path into heaven is tied up with humanities since we have been given dominion over them. its just seems like animals are imprintable like that. i have spent many hours laying my hands on animals and praying. i have done this with every animal i have ever owned and have done it regularly for each of them. i can feel the presence of God and Christ go into them while praying for them and there is most certainly a change in their personality and demeanor as a result over time because of it.

it seems obvious to me that these animals are being touched and responding to the Holy Spirit. once while laying and praying with a dog i had a rare entrance into God’s light, suddenly i was surrounded by white light and sheer love and it was blissfull. my dog started to moan with pleasure but also almost like tears while it was happening and i could feel it entering her too.

i think that suggest a soul and it is now known that most animals can think rationally albeit in limited ways so i think that shows a rational soul. no reason that could not be a rational eternal soul.

 

[franklinstower]

are you sure there is no dogma about animals having eternal souls? that will be an astounding fact for me to take in if that is the case.

we increasingly discover levels of rationality in animals that we thought was not there…

as far as why Jesus did not require their baptism i think it would be more on you to show why salvation for animals, a topic we know little to nothing about, would require the exact same methods as for humans and honestly i cant see any rational reason to think that an animal could be reached by language and taught about Jesus and accept that mentally.

i can see or think of many ways in which this could happen through the work of the Holy Spirit though and through intercession by human beings who have Christ and transmit it to them through love…

 

[Vico]

are you sure there is no dogma about animals having eternal souls? that will be an astounding fact for me to take in if that is the case.

we increasingly discover levels of rationality in animals that we thought was not there…

as far as why Jesus did not require their baptism i think it would be more on you to show why salvation for animals, a topic we know little to nothing about, would require the exact same methods as for humans and honestly i cant see any rational reason to think that an animal could be reached by language and taught about Jesus and accept that mentally.

i can see or think of many ways in which this could happen through the work of the Holy Spirit though and through intercession by human beings who have Christ and transmit it to them through love…

The Beatific Vision requires charity, and charity and malice require free will. The doctrines about free will, grace, and Beatific Vision, involve only angels and humans. As an example, for angels:

• God set a supernatural final end for the angels, the immediate vision of God, and endowed them with sanctifying grace in order that they might achieve this end. (Sent. certa.)

 

[franklinstower]

it seems to me to be apparently wrong that animals don’t have rationality and free will. i think they have both of these but in limited form compared to us.

thank you for pointing out the teaching of the Church on this. so you are saying there is no statement made that animals DONT have free will or souls but that where the Church speaks of free will and rational souls it speaks only of humans and angels.

i guess i don’t see the reason why scripture would need to tell us all of this about animals even if animals did have rational souls. it does not seem necessary that we know this.

 

[Vico]

it seems to me to be apparently wrong that animals don’t have rationality and free will. i think they have both of these but in limited form compared to us.

thank you for pointing out the teaching of the Church on this. so you are saying there is no statement made that animals DONT have free will or souls but that where the Church speaks of free will and rational souls it speaks only of humans and angels.

i guess i don’t see the reason why scripture would need to tell us all of this about animals even if animals did have rational souls. it does not seem necessary that we know this.

The Church has rejected reincarnation.

Children that have not developed the use of reason are not able to personally sin, per the teaching of the Church.

Casti Canubii of Pope Pius XI has this statement about animals using blind instinct alone:

7. By matrimony, therefore, the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies, and that not by any passing affection of sense of spirit, but by a deliberate and firm act of the will; and from this union of souls by God’s decree, a sacred and inviolable bond arises. Hence the nature of this contract, which is proper and peculiar to it alone, makes it entirely different both from the union of animals entered into by the blind instinct of nature alone in which neither reason nor free will plays a part, and also from the haphazard unions of men, which are far removed from all true and honorable unions of will and enjoy none of the rights of family life.

 

[franklinstower]

i think the more we discover about animals and their use of reason the more we see that indeed they are rational in surprising ways. they do not live on instinct alone. i think this was written back when we did not know so much. we are not speaking of humans getting salvation here but animals-- the criteria would obviously have to be different concerning them.

also i never said anything about reincarnation at all. not sure where the misunderstanding is on that topic.

 

[Vico]

i think the more we discover about animals and their use of reason the more we see that indeed they are rational in surprising ways. i think this was written back when we did not know so much. we are not speaking of humans getting salvation here but animals-- the criteria would obviously have to be different concerning them.

also i never said anything about reincarnation at all. not sure where the misunderstanding is on that topic.

Reincarnation involves the idea of soul and has been taught by some that human souls come from animal souls, so I mentioned it.

Salvation is only for humans, per the Catholic dogmas. Jesus Christ did not atone for angels, only mankind. Reason sufficient for personal choice is necessary for responsibility and it is not established that any animal other than humankind has that capability, even today.

 

[franklinstower]

i hear you but i just disagree with the entire premise from animals having the same plan of salvation, or even need of it, to them having to come to it in ways that are unapproachable for them.

maybe salvation is not what they receive but something else that we know nothing of?

that quote from a pope is wrong by the way. it has been shown that animals do use reason.

 

[Vico]

i hear you but i just disagree with the entire premise from animals having the same plan of salvation, or even need of it, to them having to come to it in ways that are unapproachable for them.

maybe salvation is not what they receive but something else that we know nothing of?

that quote from a pope is wrong by the way. it has been shown that animals do use reason.

The Gospel is about the plan of salvation for mankind. The concept of salvation is not used for non-humans.

Animals do not use reason sufficient for responsibility. I thought that was clear. One cannot properly understand the statements of the Church without understanding other teachings of the Church.

 

[franklinstower]

i understand perfectly but the Bible is talking about the salvation of humans. animals could and would have a different plan with a different criteria and God would be able to judge the heart of each animal and the Holy Spirit could and would be able to reach those animals.

i dont think the scriptures or the authority of the Catholic Church even requires the knowledge i am asking about. The Church does not know everything and only has sufficient knowledge to bring about salvation for humans and has only been given enough information to do that.

whole vistas of knowledge, possibly concerning animals and souls and their destiny in God, may well lie outside of the churches purview.

its ok if we disagree. i am mostly just looking for that Catholic argument that is solid enough to prove to me that animals and even plants don’t have eternal souls. have not found it yet.

 

[Vico]

i understand perfectly but the Bible is talking about the salvation of humans. animals could and would have a different plan with a different criteria and God would be able to judge the heart of each animal and the Holy Spirit could and would be able to reach those animals.

i dont think the scriptures or the authority of the Catholic Church even requires the knowledge i am asking about. The Church does not know everything and only has sufficient knowledge to bring about salvation for humans and has only been given enough information to do that.

whole vistas of knowledge, possibly concerning animals and souls and their destiny in God, may well lie outside of the churches purview.

its ok if we disagree. i am mostly just looking for that Catholic argument that is solid enough to prove to me that animals and even plants don’t have eternal souls. have not found it yet.

You wrote: “The heart of each animal and the Holy Spirit could and would be able to reach those animals.”

That is only speculation so to make a positive statement requires establishing that animals other than humans not only have a soul but that is it spiritual. A Doctor of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the human rational soul is spiritual and eternal.

Summa Theologiae, I, Question 7

A2 … We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.

A3
I answer that, The ancient philosophers made no distinction between sense and intellect, and referred both a corporeal principle, as has been said (Article 1). Plato, however, drew a distinction between intellect and sense; yet he referred both to an incorporeal principle, maintaining that sensing, just as understanding, belongs to the soul as such. From this it follows that even the souls of brute animals are subsistent. But Aristotle held that of the operations of the soul, understanding alone is performed without a corporeal organ. On the other hand, sensation and the consequent operations of the sensitive soul are evidently accompanied with change in the body; thus in the act of vision, the pupil of the eye is affected by a reflection of color: and so with the other senses. Hence it is clear that the sensitive soul has no per se operation of its own, and that every operation of the sensitive soul belongs to the composite. Wherefore we conclude that as the souls of brute animals have no per se operations they are not subsistent. For the operation of anything follows the mode of its being.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article3

 

[franklinstower]

i know it is speculation. i like to think about things. i also experience no less of a spiritual connection with animals than i do with people. if there is not a necessary argument for animals not having souls, if there is no logic chain that can demonstrate that then i just wont accept Catholic teaching on this level. i think it lies outside of their authority to make definitive statements about.

Aquinas’s argument has nothing necessary about it.

 

[Vico]

i know it is speculation. i like to think about things. i also experience no less of a spiritual connection with animals than i do with people. if there is not a necessary argument for animals not having souls, if there is no logic chain that can demonstrate that then i just wont accept Catholic teaching on this level. i think it lies outside of their authority to make definitive statements about.

Aquinas’s argument has nothing necessary about it.

You wrote: “I also experience no less of a spiritual connection with animals than i do with people.”

I have never experienced a spiritual connection with an animal although I have owned animals and protect them and appreciate the varieties in nature. There are many uses of the word spiritual, so spiritual that I am speaking of pertains to immaterial spirit.

Modern Catholic Dictonary, spirit:

SPIRIT. That which is positively immaterial. …

 

[franklinstower]

the holiness that sets in when in prayer with a group of people, that connect us and makes us one, that is the Holy Spirit, that holiness i feel with animals and trees.

here is an answer from an Orthodox priest

We clergy, infallible sources of all knowledge that we are, of course realize that the answer is this question is, “I really don’t know”, but this will hardly do, and anyway it presupposes that the person is looking for a theological summary of what the Church teaches. But the Church has never spoken definitively about this question, and so an authoritative reply is not possible. But since the child is looking for comfort and assurance rather than a Bible lesson, perhaps it is best to approach the matter differently.

As suggested above, the Scriptures do not say much about the matter of animal immortality. Some might suggest that the creation stories in Genesis 1-2 answer the question, since they say that Man has a soul, but animals do not. Actually, those texts say no such thing, and if by “a soul” one refers to the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7, then they say the opposite. The term used in Genesis 2:7 describing the creation of Adam and rendered “soul” is the Hebrew nephesh , which is also used in Genesis 1:20 and 1:24. There it described the creation of animals, which are termed nephesh hayya , “living souls”—perhaps bettered rendered “animate beings” (the Latinate among us will recognize the Latin for “soul”— anima —in the English word “animate”). The texts simply said that after their creation both the animals and Adam were alive and could feel and move.

Perhaps more to the point is the question asked in Ecclesiastes 3:21, which speaks of the spirit of man going upward and the spirit of beasts going downward. This is a pretty slim foundation upon which to build a doctrine for or against the immortality of animals, especially since the author here expresses his agnosticism about the distinction between man and beast. Indeed, he says, “The fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts” (v. 19)—an expression of pessimistic nihilism with which the Church does not endorse. Perhaps Ecclesiastes should be read more as asking questions than as offering answers.

So, the Scriptures seem not to offer much guidance to the question of the fate of animals.

 

[Vico]

the holiness that sets in when in prayer with a group of people, that connect us and makes us one, that is the Holy Spirit, that holiness i feel with animals and trees.

here is an answer from an Orthodox priest
…

So, the Scriptures seem not to offer much guidance to the question of the fate of animals.

Yes, there is much speculation. How do you know that the “holiness that sets in when in prayer with a group of people” is the Holy Spirit?

 

[franklinstower]

my priest and spiritual advisor says so.

 

[Vico]

my priest and spiritual advisor says so.

How does that one know? If someone certainly knows then why call it speculation?

 

[franklinstower]

well it happens in mass so unless you are saying its the devil instead i don’t know what to tell you. its the same Spirit that i have witnessed cure incurable diseases and its the same Spirit i have witness rehab animals who have been abused.

if your argument is going to be that NO ONE knows the Holy Spirit or can identify it over time base on results, even priest and monks and nuns, then i will have to say you have gone to far in an attempt to disprove a point and have been misled by an institution that protects itself at all costs.