Causing Disease in Animals: Are they God's pets?

[truetofaith]

I would never intentionally hurt an animal either for fun or by accident… so if I’m driving…I swerve my car to avoid hitting a squirrel that runs in front of it.

On the other hand, I would set a trap if there was a mouse in my garage…and feel no remorse for it. I 've also squashed many roaches, spiders, flies etc.

I don’t think we must answer to God for these things.

 

[ethereality]

I had posed questions inspired by both of my threads here to them, and this was the second response:

Thank you for your question.

The most specific and authoritative answers to your questions can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here are some quotations from the section on the 7th Commandment.

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.194 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives.

Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.195

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.196 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.197 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.
I think you can see that, within the framework of this teaching, it is possible to use animals ethically in research. I think most labs do a good job in this regard. Ironically, it is sometimes the efforts of animal right advocates (e.g., in “freeing” lab animals) that causes additional suffering.

I think that intentional torture of animals – an act of malice – is intrinsically evil. Apart from something like that, however, I think there are a wide range of prudential decisions to make.

So it seems they’re giving me the green light to give mice cancer, irradiate them, kill them after two weeks, etc., as long as it’s done with care.

I am concerned about that sentence, however: “It requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.” It is precisely this sentiment that gave me pause previously: Is it really respecting the integrity of creation to deliberately cause disorder and dysfunction within it?

 

[ethereality]

There will need to be a certain amount of emotional detachment for you, since it becomes increasingly hard to conduct your research if you’re invested in the animals. You may need to think of them as objects to do your research (as I did) but make sure the practices are in place prior to that so that you can be an emotionally detached responsible steward.

This is of great concern, as I indicated in the OP: It seems sinful to objectify the animals, that God wants us to interact with creation with all of our being. Where is the misstep in this thinking? Moreover, our emotions are an important source of knowledge, often helping us to see when something is “not right” (this can save one’s life in the face of a potential kidnapping or assault, for example).

 

[NeedsMercy]

I had posed questions inspired by both of my threads here to them, and this was the second response: So it seems they’re giving me the green light to give mice cancer, irradiate them, kill them after two weeks, etc., as long as it’s done with care.

I am concerned about that sentence, however: “It requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.” It is precisely this sentiment that gave me pause previously: Is it really respecting the integrity of creation to deliberately cause disorder and dysfunction within it?

I didn’t expect much from the NCBC, and I was not disappointed. Here’s where I have problems with their response to you.

NCBC said…

The most specific and authoritative answers to your questions can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Now, I respect the CCC and its authors, but this particular section of the catechism is pretty lukewarm and rife with contradictions. In 2416, it implies the intrinsic value of animals—“they bless Him and give Him glory”—yet in 2415, it implies that animals are merely here for our use. Which is it? 2417 allows for the purchase and wearing of a mink coat. On the other hand, we are not to cause animals pain needlessly. Assuming the Church ethicists know the down and dirty of mink farms, and since coats can be made of synthetic materials, how does Catholicism reconcile the two ideas? Ditto for eating animal products and factory farming. Ditto for “leisure” use and circuses, rodeos and pig “rassles” (some of the latter even used by parishes as “fundraisers”).

Look at 2418 “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly”—the Church even refrains from calling this behavior a sin; no, it is “contrary to human dignity”. The message being received is that harming animals is bad, not because the animal is harmed, but because **we **are spiritually harmed in the process. This is a direct remnant from the 13th century. It just seems that the Church is still trying to figure out its position on animal rights and advocacy. It has been suggested that the ethics of Aquinas and even Immanuel Kant are lacking in this regard. In his book, Gods, Humans and Animals: an invitation to enlarge our moral universe, Robert N. Wennberg says that each man “holds a moral theory that has no place for animals; yet being decent individuals, they do not want to be so insensitive as to be morally indifferent to the cruel and abusive treatment of animals. The trick for them is to morally condemn cruelty to animals without admitting direct moral obligations to animals. It can be done, they judge, by arguing that those who mistreat animals are likely to mistreat humans and for that reason–and that reason alone–such mistreatment is wrong.” I think it’s here that the Church seems to be wavering.

NCBC also says…

I think you can see that, within the framework of this teaching, it is possible to use animals ethically in research. I think most labs do a good job in this regard.

It’s possible, but I do not believe that most animals in research labs are ethically treated. Yes, there’s a protocol, but I’d love to see some kind of study polling researchers on how many labs follow it.

I’ve saved the best from NCBC for the last…

Ironically, it is sometimes the efforts of animal right advocates (e.g., in “freeing” lab animals) that causes additional suffering.

Well, well, well. Now I think I see where they’re coming from. They can’t have actual data saying this nonsense, so it looks like there’s an agenda here somewhere. And indeed, on their website, there is so little written about animal welfare and cruelty that one would need an electron microscope to pick it up. If animals are spoken of at all, it is only in comparisons to humans. But animal activists are mentioned a number of times, all negatively.

Bottom line? NCBC will not waiver from the long and tightly held traditions of the Church. And they seem to be swinging wide to the right on animal issues. I’d take what this person said with a few grains of salt. Very disappointing and very sad.

 

[ethereality]

NeedsMercy, try to have a more positive opinion of our theologians; I don’t think they’re as bad as all that.

I came back because I thought this was too outstanding to pass without mention:

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/the-dayside/exemplary-biophysics-a-dayside-post:

Hodgkin and Huxley experimented on the European squid, Loligo vulgaris. They cooked and ate their experimental subjects once they were done with them.

…] Their experiment and model earned the pair the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

The humor or irony aside, here is a brief explanation: “They formulated a set of nonlinear differential equations that approximate the electrical characteristics of nerve cells,” after threading wires through them and pulsing them with electricity (apparently while alive). (It’s actually not clear from this article whether the animals experienced any harm or not, apart from being caught and eaten.)

 

[NeedsMercy]

NeedsMercy, try to have a more positive opinion of our theologians; I don’t think they’re as bad as all that.

I came back because I thought this was too outstanding to pass without mention: The humor or irony aside, here is a brief explanation: “They formulated a set of nonlinear differential equations that approximate the electrical characteristics of nerve cells,” after threading wires through them and pulsing them with electricity (apparently while alive). (It’s actually not clear from this article whether the animals experienced any harm or not, apart from being caught and eaten.)

ethereality, I don’t exactly know what your point is about this article. Is shocking squid permissible because they did something that won a Nobel Prize? Were they heels for eating their subjects? Maybe you can explain a little further.

I don’t really have such a pale view of all theologians. I have a problem with those who fail to contrast the Catholic tradition about animals with what the current science tells us about animal consciousness, intelligence, communication and social behavior. Because some animal activists have a broader view of animal life, they are held up as objects of ridicule by those uncharitable few such as work at NCBC. The Church is not going to fall apart if we expand our horizons with reality. It’s time for the theologians to understand that. Let’s hope His Holiness addresses the subject of animals in his upcoming encyclical on the environment.

 

[ethereality]

I don’t exactly know what your point is about this article. Is shocking squid permissible because they did something that won a Nobel Prize? Were they heels for eating their subjects? Maybe you can explain a little further.

Not sure what you mean by ‘heels’ (is it languages from the 1940’s for ‘a bad person’?) …

Basically, I found it sardonic that after a prolonged argument about eating animals and experimenting on them, with statements like “It’s okay to eat them but not okay to experiment on them,” I come across someone who did both – and then got a Nobel Prize for it.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

To the question, “Are animals God’s pets?”, I would have to say “no” since God has no need of a pet; however, He has no *need *for us either. We’re here because He loves us. This goes for the remainder of His creation also—animals, plants, rocks, etc. How could you not love something made from the goodness of your heart? I would guess that He sees animals more like His other non-human children, different from us, sure, but loved nonetheless. And, since He loves and respects them, we are bound to do the same. I don’t know if I would consider animals God’s “property” any more than I would consider humans to be His property. So, too, animals are more than just our “property”. Catholics believe that animals have souls in addition to their physical bodies. They are indeed more than just “objects to be used”.

I used to work in a place where a Tick Fever (Redwater) Vaccine was produced. Back in the 1890’s about 50% of Queensland’s cattle population died from tick fever, which was brought in by imported water buffalo from Asia (as far as I’m aware).

So far as I know, there are no “killed” vaccines for Tick Fever (or Redwater Fever), and so the vaccine that we produced was actually an attenuated (weakened) strain of the disease itself. It is so weak, most inoculated animals should be able to resist it, and develop immune responses at the same time. However there was always a small risk of an animal developing the disease from the vaccine itself.

However in the production of the disease, some unfortunate calves got very sick, having had their spleens removed to reduce their immunity.

I felt sorry for them, but I suppose it was a case of the “greater good”. Either a small number of animals suffered and died under laboratory conditions, or a much greater number of animals suffered and died in the field.

Having said that, I see no need for unnecessary cruelty to animals. I think factory farming should be banned. I also believe anybody who treats animals badly will answer for it on the day they die, regardless of whether animals have immortal souls or not. Because God sees everything, and misses nothing.

I doubt if Wild Bill Hickok and the US railroad barons got much of a standing reception in heaven when they died, after their wholesale slaughter of bison, which was also the Indians’ source of food supply.

When its all said and done, human mistreatment of animals has the same source as all our other cruelties - human sinfulness.

Incidentally if anyone ever does develop a killed vaccine for Tick Fever, then they’d probably be close to developing a killed vaccine for Malaria. I remember the chief veterinarian saying that they have common characteristics, one of which is that they both live in the bloodstream, which is also the centre of the body’s immune system.

And incidentally, I happen to believe in global warming, and one result will be the increased spread of malaria.

 

[ManyFaces]

We are to take care of creation, we are not to cause harm.

 

[sugarcat]

Great points, let me add another, there is NO sinful action a human being does that does not harm a human - the same one that does it. Gunning down a dog, for instance, degrades the conscience and the dignity of the gunner, and so on. And if that person happens to be catholic, it also harms the body of Christ. One thing gangsters and terrorists do to conscripts is get them to kill soon and often so they will not hesitate to do so on command.

I reckon, black sphere, that you are very misguided in your answer.

Consider that God has made all of Creation, and not pointlessly, and because it pleased Him. God saw all of Creation and saw that it was good, and all of this before He created man!

When I treat that which God has made as though it had no intrinsic value, as though it were just as simple to be killed for my amusement as aught else, so long as it doesn’t impact man, I have gone down a dark and sinful path. This sort of reasoning is the reasoning people use to justify masturbation. If it hurts no one, it is not wrong. Likewise, if gunning down a dog won’t hurt any people, it’s not wrong.

This sort of behavior really betrays a gross perversion and disdain for the goodness of God’s creation.

God Himself testifies that animals have intrinsic value, more than just the value imputed to them by man, in the last verse of the last chapter, 4:11 of the book of Jonah.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PTZ.HTM

Here, Jonah is frustrated with God because God will not destroy Nineveh since they have repented. When God grows a plant, its shade for Jonah to rest in, Jonah delights in it, and when it dies the next day, he is angry with God. God rebukes Jonah, emphasizing the value of life.

 

[simpleas]

We all are God’s pets…He gave us creatures an extra…a conscience.

We might want to use it more…

 

[Bob_Crowley]

…
I felt sorry for them, but I suppose it was a case of the “greater good”. Either a small number of animals suffered and died under laboratory conditions, or a much greater number of animals suffered and died in the field…

I used the term “greater good” in my post above which included this quote.

With hindsight, I should have used the term “lesser evil”, as there is nothing intrinsically good about giving calves a fatal disease, removing their spleen to reduce their immunity, and guaranteeing they’re going to suffer considerably.

But in fairness to us, we didn’t create the Tick Fever parasite.

God did.

 

[corefaith]

I know and understand all the arguments for allowing research on animals, including those given in the CCC. And yet, it is difficult to imagine any compassionate person looking another living creature in the eyes and giving it a disease. It is most difficult to imagine Christ doing so.

Animals have evolved similar systems as ourselves and are conscious and feel pain. Wouldn’t we want the benefit of the doubt in a similar situation?

It is easy to support such things when out of sight. An eye opener for me was the Youtube video on the Covance laboratory investigation. It is difficult to watch and impossible to forget.

Research helps human beings, but we can’t live forever. Is it selfish to inflict such horrors on other innocent beings to extend our own lives a few days or a few years? Seems like selective compassion.