Catholic stance on spiritual connection to nature?

[franklinstower]

I have some questions regarding the Catholic stance on other forms of life ie plant life and animal life.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church does not believe that trees and animals have rational or eternal souls. My conversion to Christianity brought me out of a shamanic path (non traditional). We were able to experience a profound beauty and connection to all living things. It was a felt and spiritual connection to all things that made every blade of grass and every tree sacred.

When I became Catholic 20 years ago I left all of that behind to place my focus only on Christ. It has been profound and i am so deeply grateful for what I have received from Christ. I would never leave this path.

And yet I still feel a deep sense of loss, even 20 years later because nothing has ever come in to replace that deeply spiritual connection I experienced with my pets, with animals and with nature.

Recently i have been thinking about Francis of Assisi’s spirituality and how similar mine was to his before i became a Catholic. He seemed to commune with nature in profound ways even saying brother sun and sister moon…

My question is this. What specific scriptures are used to draw out the theology that animals and plants do not have rational or eternal souls? And secondarily where can I find the specific theological treatment of this topic in Catholic theology?

Thank you all who reply.

 

[Gorgias]

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church does not believe that trees and animals have souls.

Not true. The soul is the principle of life in a living creature. Plants and animals don’t have rational, human souls. They don’t have immortal souls. But they do have a ‘principle of life’ which animates them. (Aquinas would talk about ‘vegetative’ and ‘sensitive’ souls, in terms of plants and animals.)

We were able to experience a profound beauty and connection to all living things.

Catholics talk about connections between creatures in the world. In fact, we believe that God gave us the responsibility to be good stewards of His creation.

What specific scriptures are used to draw out the theology that animals and plants do not have souls?

Your premise is mistaken. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach what you presume it does.

 

[franklinstower]

Go back and read my post ( i will edit it) to say rational and eternal soul and then answer the questions from that perspective.

 

[Stephen_says]

Genesis 1. God made man in his image, with a rational soul and free will. He did not say that he would make any other creature in his image.

Not to mean you can’t have a connection with other creatures. Every creature in some way reflects the glory of God, in their beauty or strangeness or strength or abundance. God creates all things and keeps them in being. I thank God for all trees and animals, but ultimately they come from him, who alone is due our worship.

 

[STT]

God made man in his image

What is image?

 

[franklinstower]

i hear that and can accept it means something special and different about us. i cannot see the necessity from reading this scripture of saying animals do not have eternal souls.

 

[Gorgias]

Go back and read my post ( i will edit it) to say rational and eternal soul and then answer the questions from that perspective.

You’re correct, then: yes, the Church does teach that humans have immortal, rational souls and other creatures do not. It has its basis in the creation stories in Genesis and the teachings that proceed from it: humans are made “in the image and likeness of God”.

You can read about this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially here and here. In addition, the document Guadium et spes from the Second Vatican Council (see especially the discussion beginning at #12) discusses these notions.

 

[Stephen_says]

“Let us make man to our image. This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul; which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free-will. — Man is possessed of many prerogatives above all other creatures of this visible world: his soul gives him a sort of equality with the Angels; and though his body be taken from the earth, like the brutes, yet even here the beautiful construction, the head erect and looking towards heaven, &c. makes S. Aug. observe, an air of majesty in the human body, which raises man above all terrestrial animals, and brings him in some measure near to the Divinity. As Jesus assumed our human nature, we may assert, that we bear a resemblance to God both in soul and body. Tertullian (de Resur. 5.) says, “Thus that slime, putting on already the image of Christ, who would come in the flesh, was not only the work of God, but also a pledge.” H. See S. Bern. on Ps. xcix. W.“

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-03.shtml#navPoint_4

 

[franklinstower]

I will read this. Thank you. I have given this a lot of thought over the years and seem to have come to a turning point. I can see nothing necessary about drawing the conclusion that animals do not have eternal souls from Genesis. I cannot even find a remote necessity for that argument…

 

[Gorgias]

i cannot see the necessity from reading this scripture of saying animals do not have eternal souls.

A couple of quick thoughts:

• the manner in which the creation of humans, as opposed to the manner in which other creatures were created, shows a distinct difference.
• after Adam and Eve sin, the account in Genesis 3 says that God created animal skin loincloths for them. Now… would it be moral to take the life of a person, in order to use the materials of their body for some other purpose? No! Of course not – that would be immoral, since we have that “image and likeness of God” in our very nature. In the description of the conflict between Cain and Abel, we see that the very earth is said to cry out at the injustice of murdering a person. And yet, nothing is said about the killing of an animal for clothing.

So, I think that there’s plenty there that allows us to say not only that humans have immortal souls, but also that only humans do.

 

[franklinstower]

I hear this but can find nothing necessary about concluding that animals do not have eternal souls in it. It sounds to me like an error in thinking and for me that error has led to a negative kind of spiritual poverty…

 

[STT]

“Let us make man to our image. This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul; which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free-will. — Man is possessed of many prerogatives above all other creatures of this visible world: his soul gives him a sort of equality with the Angels; and though his body be taken from the earth, like the brutes, yet even here the beautiful construction, the head erect and looking towards heaven, &c. makes S. Aug. observe, an air of majesty in the human body, which raises man above all terrestrial animals, and brings him in some measure near to the Divinity. As Jesus assumed our human nature, we may assert, that we bear a resemblance to God both in soul and body. Tertullian (de Resur. 5.) says, “Thus that slime, putting on already the image of Christ, who would come in the flesh, was not only the work of God, but also a pledge.” H. See S. Bern. on Ps. xcix. W.“

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-03.shtml#navPoint_4

Do you mean that image of God is our souls?

 

[Gorgias]

I can see nothing necessary about drawing the conclusion that animals do not have eternal souls from Genesis.

One more thought: Catholicism doesn’t claim that the teachings of the Church proceed only from the Bible. They actually proceed from the teaching authority that Christ gave the apostles. So, two thoughts here:

• It’s not just “did I find it in the Bible?”
• and, it’s not even “did I find it in the Bible?”

Rather, it’s “does the Church teach that this is so?”

 

[franklinstower]

I hear this and it is a good argument.

On the other hand I do not think that aspect of Genesis necessarily has to have profound theological arguments teased out of it. To me it sounds like the best thinking that a very primitive people could make at the time…

It is already the case that the Catholic Church makes distinction like this in scripture all the time and allows for primitive and even incorrect thinking to exist withing sacred and inspired scripture.

Also a difference in majesty can exist between Gods creations and still have eternal souls as a feature of all of them.

I suppose this is one of the areas where I think it is primitive thinking shining through in the scriptures and erroneous beliefs being teased out of them.

 

[franklinstower]

That is why i asked for scripture AND theology on this topic.

 

[Vico]

…
What specific scriptures are used to draw out the theology that animals and plants do not have rational or eternal souls? And secondarily where can I find the specific theological treatment of this topic in Catholic theology? …

There is no dogma about animals other than man having eternal souls, however, if other animals did, then why would Jesus not have required their baptism also? From philosophy, I think from Plato, a rational being is eternal and we do not observe animals other than mankind having the same rational capacity.

 

[Gorgias]

To me it sounds like the best thinking that a very primitive people could make at the time…

That sounds like a perspective that denies the divine inspiration of Scripture. No? After all, we wouldn’t say that it’s merely “what very primitive people made up”, right?

I suppose this is one of the areas where I think it is primitive thinking shining through in the scriptures and erroneous beliefs being teased out of them.

Hmm… so not only “Scripture isn’t inspired” but also “the Church does not teach the truth”. Am I misreading your assertions?

That is why i asked for scripture AND theology on this topic.

And got 'em both…

 

[STT]

Why rational being is eternal?

 

[franklinstower]

I think you are exaggeration my position (not intentionally). The church has been wrong about a lot throughout history in matters not directly relevant to salvation.

On this topic. I feel that i have everything I need for salvation from Catholic doctrine and I feel that they cant get it wrong enough that its members will not find salvation in the Catholic Church. Aside from that i feel the church can be and is wrong about a lot of things.

I think both of these can be true at the same time. This is an area that just doesn’t sit well with me and my experience and I cannot see the necessity of the argument in terms of the Church providing salvation for its members.

 

[Gorgias]

I think you are exaggeration my position (not intentionally).

Well… it kinda is what you said, right?

The church has been wrong about a lot throughout history in matters not directly relevant to salvation.

Matters of faith and morals? Doctrine? That’s the point you were raising. There’s nothing that protects the Church in matters of mere prudential judgment, so “been wrong before” only is relevant in that context.

I cannot see the necessity of the argument in terms of the Church providing salvation for its members.

It’s literally a discussion about what it means to be a human, and what it means to obtain salvation. That’s a pretty important topic.

One last thought for the night: if animals had immortal, rational souls, then they could merit salvation, too. But also, they would be capable of sinning. Do you believe that animals sin? If not, then you cannot simultaneously hold that they have immortal, rational souls… right?