Catholic teaching on animals?

[severus68]

I sometimes read a horse board that is overwhelmingly made up of women. Some of things people write there are very sad. There are some that say they prefer people to animals and of those, many say they want to get a hysterectomy because they never want children. Many go so far as to say they hate children. Most of these folks claim to be Wiccan or a militant form of atheism that rears it’s ugly head anytime Chrisitianity comes up. And most are overwhelmingly in support of abortion. Many horsepeople are not like this, but there is a loud, sad minority that makes everyone with horses seem elitist and mean spirited. Makes me glad we are more cattle type people with a few horses, rather than true ‘horsepeople’. These are the people I think of when I read about prioritizing animals over people. I tried very hard to gently represent Christianity, but I don’t go there much anymore. They are viciously anti-Christian and my presence didn’t seem to help.

For vet school applicants, there is a common question to test ethics because vets MUST put human health before animal health. The question is worded in several ways, but one form that i’ve heard of is:

What would you do if you saw a puppy in the road and a baby in the road and you could only save one? If an applicant picks the puppy, they fail. Yes, some people do.

BTW, having shelters IS prioritizing people. It lowers the risk that goes along with stray animals. That risk was very real for children decades ago and still exists in poorer countries without animal shelters.

Why would a baby be in the middle of a road? Sadly, puppies are placed in the middle of roads by a few people. Being made in the image of God does not mean guarantee goodness.

Where are strays from? Either dumped by people or the progeny of those dumped by humans.

I like horses. Not sure what your point is, sorry. I note that the US has set up horse slaughter facilities. How terrible.

Not all Christians are good, not al l atheists are bad. I do wish all people believed in God though.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t either. C.S.Lewis wrote an essay on vivisection - interesting .

I think there’s a difference between vivisection and animal testing, though. The Catechism does not endorse vivisection. It doesn’t say that any amount of cruelty may be visited on an animal in the off chance that humans may benefit, which I think was Lewis’ point. I’m not sure Lewis and the Catechism are in disagreement.

If you have a medicine that you think is safe, but you’re not sure, it’s legitimate to try it on an animal first. That’s different from cutting them open when they are alive, or deliberately making them horribly sick, or feeding them poisons to see how their bodies react.

Edwin

 

[Cricket2]

I sometimes read a horse board that is overwhelmingly made up of women. Some of things people write there are very sad. There are some that say they prefer people to animals and of those, many say they want to get a hysterectomy because they never want children. Many go so far as to say they hate children. Most of these folks claim to be Wiccan or a militant form of atheism that rears it’s ugly head anytime Chrisitianity comes up. And most are overwhelmingly in support of abortion. Many horsepeople are not like this, but there is a loud, sad minority that makes everyone with horses seem elitist and mean spirited. Makes me glad we are more cattle type people with a few horses, rather than true ‘horsepeople’. These are the people I think of when I read about prioritizing animals over people. I tried very hard to gently represent Christianity, but I don’t go there much anymore. They are viciously anti-Christian and my presence didn’t seem to help.

For vet school applicants, there is a common question to test ethics because vets MUST put human health before animal health. The question is worded in several ways, but one form that i’ve heard of is:

What would you do if you saw a puppy in the road and a baby in the road and you could only save one? If an applicant picks the puppy, they fail. Yes, some people do.

BTW, having shelters IS prioritizing people. It lowers the risk that goes along with stray animals. That risk was very real for children decades ago and still exists in poorer countries without animal shelters.

As a Christian I love animals and people. Of course if you could only chose to save a baby or the puppy you would have to try and save the child. Anyone saying otherwise has a problem.

Unfortunately, I do understand liking animals more than people at times. I have never met a dishonest animal, but have met way too many people who are dishonest. Sometimes people get hurt by their fellow humans so much that they can’t bring themselves to trust them, and they turn to animals for something to care for. I would not put an animal before a person, but I will not deny animals care and compassion either.

 

[Angelsflight]

Why would a baby be in the middle of a road? Sadly, puppies are placed in the middle of roads by a few people. Being made in the image of God does not mean guarantee goodness.

Where are strays from? Either dumped by people or the progeny of those dumped by humans.

I like horses. Not sure what your point is, sorry. I note that the US has set up horse slaughter facilities. How terrible.

Not all Christians are good, not al l atheists are bad. I do wish all people believed in God though.

 

[Angelsflight]

Are you saying that someone should spend USD 25 a year for an online memorial for a dead animal when that money annually could vaccinate or feed children?

That “dead animal” was very important to me. An incredibly beautiful creation of God. 25 dollars a year is not a whole heck of a lot to pay respect to my best friend. What others do with their money is not my business, was just a suggestion to assist with their grief.

And I will thank you not to tell me how to spend my money also.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

I like horses. Not sure what your point is, sorry. I note that the US has set up horse slaughter facilities. How terrible.

Not all Christians are good, not al l atheists are bad. I do wish all people believed in God though.

Sorry I wasn’t more clear…I meant to write that there are people that make it very clear they prefer animals to people. I don’t mean just that they recognize the nice qualities animals have (they can be the most loyal companions) but that they prefer them over people. Hence the hypothetical questions that vet schools use to weed out people who may make terrible decisions because of a skewed sense of priorities.

If you have a pet, you should absolutely provide for that animal. If you have a child that is gravely ill and a horse that is gravely ill, but only the horse sees a vet while the child is ignored, well, then we have a problem.

I agree that there are good and bad in all religions. I was just surprised at the commonality of the most militant anti-child folks claiming to be Wiccan. I suspect they are not good representatives of their religion and, from some of their posts, they say believe in reincarnation and animal souls which I am not sure is actually Wiccan or simply a made up religion of their very own.

Horse slaughter is very sad. The fact that we have any so-called “surplus” animals is horrible. Those that breed horses without regard to the market or the quality of their animals are the most to blame for horse slaughter. Of the horses I have owned, only one came from a good home. The rest were dumped, starved, or abandoned before I brought them home.

 

[severus68]

I think there’s a difference between vivisection and animal testing, though. The Catechism does not endorse vivisection. It doesn’t say that any amount of cruelty may be visited on an animal in the off chance that humans may benefit, which I think was Lewis’ point. I’m not sure Lewis and the Catechism are in disagreement.

If you have a medicine that you think is safe, but you’re not sure, it’s legitimate to try it on an animal first. That’s different from cutting them open when they are alive, or deliberately making them horribly sick, or feeding them poisons to see how their bodies react.

Edwin

Who is making the determination as to what is permitted by the Church? Animals are infected with diseases, fed toxins etc to cause cancer in them etc. to find cures. Animal testing is much more than testing a drug on animals.

I do not find any animal testing to be acceptable. Thank goodness, alternatives have been found and more are being researched.

C. S. Lewis’ views arguements against vivisection would apply to any animal testing.

 

[Contarini]

Who is making the determination as to what is permitted by the Church? Animals are infected with diseases, fed toxins etc to cause cancer in them etc. to find cures. Animal testing is much more than testing a drug on animals.

I do not find any animal testing to be acceptable. Thank goodness, alternatives have been found and more are being researched.

C. S. Lewis’ views arguements against vivisection would apply to any animal testing.

I don’t know what further teaching exists on specific forms of animal testing. I do know that by making a blanket condemnation, you’re weakening your own case. It’s obvious that not all forms of animal testing are morally equivalent, and also that, as you say, much that is being done goes way beyond the minimal example I gave.

But no, I don’t think that Lewis’ arguments against vivisection would apply to any animal testing at all. I think you need to make that case, and I’m not sure how you would do so. If human beings do have a special status among animals–and Lewis, like the Catholic Church, held that they do–it follows necessarily that in some cases it is legitimate to use animals for testing–as in the example I gave above.

Edwin

 

[simpleas]

*2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 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.198 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.*

Unfortunately this sounds very contraditing to me.

On one hand animals are Gods creatures who bless and give him glory by their mere existence, and men should take care of them.

On the other its morally to test on them in the interests of saving lives, within reasonable limits?

What is a reasonable limit…

 

[severus68]

I don’t know what further teaching exists on specific forms of animal testing. I do know that by making a blanket condemnation, you’re weakening your own case. It’s obvious that not all forms of animal testing are morally equivalent, and also that, as you say, much that is being done goes way beyond the minimal example I gave.

But no, I don’t think that Lewis’ arguments against vivisection would apply to any animal testing at all. I think you need to make that case, and I’m not sure how you would do so. If human beings do have a special status among animals–and Lewis, like the Catholic Church, held that they do–it follows necessarily that in some cases it is legitimate to use animals for testing–as in the example I gave above.

Edwin

There are no further teachings on this. I hope and pray that Pope Francis will do something for animals too.

Lewis basically said (as I read from his essay) that even if we are superior to animals, we are obliged to treat them well. To me, our God given superior abilities should not be used to abuse animals for our benefit. It is abuse to cause pain and suffering, even if for the benefit of humans.

 

[Angelsflight]

There are no further teachings on this. I hope and pray that Pope Francis will do something for animals too.

Lewis basically said (as I read from his essay) that even if we are superior to animals, we are obliged to treat them well. To me, our God given superior abilities should not be used to abuse animals for our benefit. It is abuse to cause pain and suffering, even if for the benefit of humans.

 

[Cricket2]

There are no further teachings on this. I hope and pray that Pope Francis will do something for animals too.

Lewis basically said (as I read from his essay) that even if we are superior to animals, we are obliged to treat them well. To me, our God given superior abilities should not be used to abuse animals for our benefit. It is abuse to cause pain and suffering, even if for the benefit of humans.

I agree. I could not go further with some of my interests in research because I knew it could involve using animals. Now, with the advent of stem cell research (I DO NOT mean the use of embryonic stem cells), I see almost no reason to use any animals.

Stem cells can be obtained without using embryo’s, such as placenta’s or our own skin or tissue samples. These could then be used to research the effectiveness of drugs and medications. I truly believe that the use of animals can be greatly diminished because of this. Animals are not here for us to torture and throw away. They are here for our use, yes, but not as something to treat as useless, dumb or to torment.

 

[Contarini]

There are no further teachings on this. I hope and pray that Pope Francis will do something for animals too.

Lewis basically said (as I read from his essay) that even if we are superior to animals, we are obliged to treat them well. To me, our God given superior abilities should not be used to abuse animals for our benefit. It is abuse to cause pain and suffering, even if for the benefit of humans.

I agree with Lewis entirely. I don’t think Lewis’ position, any more than the Church’s, excludes all animal testing–Lewis pretty consistently used the term “vivisection,” and I think that’s a good place to start. Equivalently painful and degrading experiments, like deliberately causing cancer, would also be under this category, I think.

However, I don’t think that it’s abuse to eat animals, for instance. And therefore I can’t logically say that it’s necessarily abuse to use them in testing either. It’s not abuse to use animals for human benefit, even if this harms them. But just as I think confinement farming of animals is wicked and immoral, even though I don’t think meat-eating is, so I think there are some fairly intuitive distinctions to be made with regard to animal testing.

Edwin

 

[severus68]

I agree with Lewis entirely. I don’t think Lewis’ position, any more than the Church’s, excludes all animal testing–Lewis pretty consistently used the term “vivisection,” and I think that’s a good place to start. Equivalently painful and degrading experiments, like deliberately causing cancer, would also be under this category, I think.

However, I don’t think that it’s abuse to eat animals, for instance. And therefore I can’t logically say that it’s necessarily abuse to use them in testing either. It’s not abuse to use animals for human benefit, even if this harms them. But just as I think confinement farming of animals is wicked and immoral, even though I don’t think meat-eating is, so I think there are some fairly intuitive distinctions to be made with regard to animal testing.

Edwin

I am just speaking about myself here. I realised that being aware of the pain caused in the killing of animals for food, I could not go on eating them and stopped awhile ago. There is no really humane slaughter and other than those who are desperate for a job, slaughter houses attract those who have sadistic tendencies.I am far from completing my journey to achieve God’s original plan for all of His creatures, human and otherwise.

I do not think that horse racing for instance, should go on. I do however, think there can be a symbiotic relationship between Man and animals. The animals should be used gently to help and taken care of.

 

[severus68]

I agree. I could not go further with some of my interests in research because I knew it could involve using animals. Now, with the advent of stem cell research (I DO NOT mean the use of embryonic stem cells), I see almost no reason to use any animals.

Stem cells can be obtained without using embryo’s, such as placenta’s or our own skin or tissue samples. These could then be used to research the effectiveness of drugs and medications. I truly believe that the use of animals can be greatly diminished because of this. Animals are not here for us to torture and throw away. They are here for our use, yes, but not as something to treat as useless, dumb or to torment.

Yes.

 

[Contarini]

I agree. I could not go further with some of my interests in research because I knew it could involve using animals. Now, with the advent of stem cell research (I DO NOT mean the use of embryonic stem cells), I see almost no reason to use any animals.

Stem cells can be obtained without using embryo’s, such as placenta’s or our own skin or tissue samples. These could then be used to research the effectiveness of drugs and medications. I truly believe that the use of animals can be greatly diminished because of this. Animals are not here for us to torture and throw away. They are here for our use, yes, but not as something to treat as useless, dumb or to torment.

I entirely agree with this, and I applaud you for making that tough choice with regard to your own research.

Severus, I respect your position although I do not at this point share it. It is a serious moral issue that I continue to work through–particularly pressing for me since I’m about to move to an eight-acre property where I hope to have some farm animals. I am in the camp of “give animals a good life and it’s not wrong to kill and eat them,” but it’s not an open and shut case by any means.

Edwin

 

[Drew518]

So in accordance with the teaching of the church, do you think its acceptable to work to raise money to help the dolphins and manatees dying from the Red Tide outbreak in Florida?

 

[Ambrose70]

*2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 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.198 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.*

Unfortunately this sounds very contraditing to me.

On one hand animals are Gods creatures who bless and give him glory by their mere existence, and men should take care of them.

On the other its morally to test on them in the interests of saving lives, within reasonable limits?

What is a reasonable limit…

Indeed, and we’re not to cause them to suffer or die “needlessly”?

What would constitute an acceptable need?

 

[severus68]

I entirely agree with this, and I applaud you for making that tough choice with regard to your own research.

Severus, I respect your position although I do not at this point share it. It is a serious moral issue that I continue to work through–particularly pressing for me since I’m about to move to an eight-acre property where I hope to have some farm animals. I am in the camp of “give animals a good life and it’s not wrong to kill and eat them,” but it’s not an open and shut case by any means.

Edwin

Thanks for being charitable in your response and being open, Edwin.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

We have a farm and raise our own cattle, chickens and turkeys. The chicken and turkeys we slaughter and dress out ourselves. I do all the day-to-day care of the animals and it’s personal. They get fed before we feed ourselves. I cannot and will not sit down to a meal without knowing the animals in our care are safe, fed, and watered. Our son knows to always treat all the animals with respect, even the chickens that don’t have names (we name all our laying hens and they stay with us for years. Only the chickens and turkeys destined for the freezer don’t get names). We give careful consideration to minimize the suffering of the animals when we slaughter them. We are raising our last batch of Cornish cross chickens for the freezer because, as their caretaker, I feel it is unethical to breed such animals.

Let me explain. Cornish crosses are the work of extreme selective breeding. They are crossbred chickens that inherit the extraordinary muscling and growth traits of both parents. Unfortunately, they cannot breed true because they don’t live long enough to reach the egg laying stage. These are the grocery store commercial type chickens. You cannot breed them yourself because they are patented. You must order them as day old chicks or eggs from a hatchery. They grow to a full sized roasting chicken in 8 weeks. You must limit their feed to every 12 hours after the age of 3 weeks or they will eat themselves to a heart attack. You don’t need to feed them hormones to make them grow (don’t fall for the natural or hormone free labels. The only non-Cornish crosses are heritage chickens with smaller beasts). They just have the genetic code to eat non-stop. They can barely scratch (a natural chicken foraging behavior) by week 7. By 10 weeks, they are too heavy for their legs to support their weight and will die. You must slaughter them before 10 weeks or you will lose some or they will be distressed from not being able to get up. Rain has made us late with this last batch and they need to hold on until Saturday. I have them in a special pen on rubber mats to keep them going until then. They will only be 9 weeks old. It feels like a mercy killing but the ethics bother me so we will raise heritage meat chickens from now on. A big juicy breast is not worth watching these animals lose their dignity. A chicken should enjoy it’s days as a chicken. Ours are supposed to only have one bad day in their lives. It will take a little less feed and about 14 weeks to raise heritage breed chickens. That’s fine because they will forage and enjoy their days in the sun.

I drop off our steers at a local butcher who puts them in a squeeze chute to ensure he doesn’t miss. He does one at a time and they never see it coming. I still feel like Judas when they follow me out of the trailer, down the lane, and into the squeeze chute. They never know a cattle prod (we don’t even own one) and they are as close to grass fed as you can get with our poor soil. I will admit that I cry for each steer. We fill our freezer and donate the rest to the church.

There are plenty of ethical issues in raising animals. I have no problem with anyone who chooses not to eat meat, but vegetarianism is not for us. I also feel like every facility that raises animals needs to be above reproach. They need to not be so secretive. If you have to hide, you aren’t doing it right. We allow anyone to visit our small farm and on any day. We just ask that they call ahead because this is also our home.