Do Animals Have Souls?

[kimmielittle]

The teaching of the Church on the rights of animals and humans is very interesting.

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.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Godscre]

Wasn’t so sure where to put this thread. Anyway…

I beleived, and still pretty much do, that animals don’t have souls. However, I was visiting this school for kids discerning the priesthood (a boarding school) and the kids got into a discussion about whether animals have souls.

Which got me thinking.

I have absolutely no evidence for or against it. So I was thinking if any of you all could shed some light on the subject. While you’re at it, do animals have feelings?

Thanks to all.

Yes, animals have souls as the Bible states and Pope John Paul II.
They also have feelings/emotions.
They belong to God and Jesus’ redemptive work includes them (see Col. 1).
God put them in our care to protect and someday we will be held accountable (see Hebrews 4:13).
Jan

 

[Sair]

It sure would be absurd to say animals must be accorded the same rights as humans. But who is supposed to decide what a “trivial” use of animals is, and what an animal’s “needs” are supposed to be, and how far to go with this?

There is a place for empathy in all interactions. In modern Western society, where many people are far removed from the source of their food, many people are shocked to discover the conditions in which factory-farmed animals are raised. This is what leads many people to become vegetarian, or to do what I do, which is buy only organically raised meat and organic animal products (which leads, for financial reasons, to a largely vegetarian diet anyway!)

A trivial need, to give it a simple definition, is one that if not met, will not compromise our overall welfare. A fundamental need, by contrast, is one that must be satisfied in order for us to survive and maintain our health. Examples of the latter are food, fluids, adequate shelter from the elements, companionship of our own kind, opportunity to express our natural behaviours and proclivities. These are basic needs that pretty much all sentient creatures - and all mammals and birds - share.

How do we decide what is a trivial use of animals? Depends on the circumstances. If we were subsistence farmers, as the majority of people in the Western world were before the Industrial Revolution, it would not be a trivial use of animals to raise them for meat, eggs and milk. What we have now, of course, is so far removed from this state of affairs that now the majority of people in the West, as stated above, have almost no connection to the production of their food. Factory farming of eggs has replaced what was once a common practice, as recently as 50 years ago - keeping laying hens in the backyard. Factory farming of animals for meat has brought the price of meat to a level where most people can afford to eat it regularly. However, we also now live in an age where there is an astonishing variety of vegetable produce available to us, and it is very easy to obtain complete nutrition from a vegetarian or largely vegetarian diet. It is also, with the application of a little creativity, extremely enjoyable. Because it is no longer necessary to our welfare to supplement our diets with meat, the desire to eat meat regularly must now be considered comparatively trivial, when weighed against the routine suffering of animals in factory farms.

By the same token, it was necessary for our prehistoric hunter-gatherer ancestors to wear fur, and often this was a by-product of the animals they hunted for meat (survival needs tend to favour efficiency, after all). These days it is not necessary for our clothing to be made from animal skins, so the desire of ‘fashionable’ types to wear fur must also be considered trivial.

Animals exist *for *humans.

Here’s where you and I fundamentally disagree. My understanding is that all animals - humans included - exist in their own right as part of a network of interrelationships. Furthermore, I don’t see how the belief that animals exist for humans could possibly apply to any of those animals who existed for millions of years before humans evolved…

 

[Godscre]

If animals have souls, humans have souls - humans are animals too.

If there is a spiritual aspect to living things - perhaps the thing that makes us ‘live’ - it is shared amongst all living things.

The alternative is that no animals have souls, which means humans have no souls either. Considering that there is much evidence linking mental experience with brain activity, and absolutely no unequivocal evidence for the existence of spirits or a spirit realm, at present I hold to this understanding.

And quite frankly, even when I was a Catholic, I didn’t want to be in a heaven that didn’t admit my dogs! I always found it impossible to believe that a benevolent god would exclude such innately loving creatures from eternal bliss.

As Isaiah 11 explains, we will live in harmony once again with God’s creatures.

Also, a new booklet about animals from a Catholic perspective (including animals having souls which is in the Bible) can be found on this website from the UK: cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_EX32.html

It’s about $3.00 + S&H which is about $6.00-7.00. It would be great if churches bought them in bulk. We need some solid teaching from a Bible/Catholic point of view from someone who is an expert concerning animals and theology.

Jan
Catholic Concern for Animals-USA

 

[Sair]

Singer always seems to try to level humanity. A human infant is therefore no better than a primate of the same age, or a disabled one, somewhat less. So far as the other animals are concerned, we are of course to treat them as they ought to be treated. After all, wasn’t Adam supposed to be the gardener of creation?

Based on my own reading of his arguments, I suspect you’re misrepresenting Singer’s motives and intentions. He isn’t trying to ‘level’ humanity - as you seem to be implying, to ‘reduce’ humans to the level of other animals; he is, rather, trying to open people’s eyes to what are, in effect, gross miscarriages of justice in our treatment of other species.

When Singer argues that a human infant should not be thought any ‘better’ than a young chimpanzee, for example, he says this on the basis of the cognitive, emotive and affective capacity of each - a chimpanzee of a certain age has a greater capacity to experience pleasure or suffering than a human infant. These are the things that ought to be taken into account when determining appropriate treatment for a sentient creature. If it’s not okay to mistreat a human infant (which I think we all agree it isn’t) then it isn’t okay to mistreat chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and so forth - these animals are our closest living relatives in evolutionary terms, but the treatment they have frequently received at the hands of humans (such as habitat destruction and often cruel experimentation) is execrable.

Any notion that a human being should be accorded more consideration than any other animal because they are human is, literally, speciesist - it’s an arbitrary distinction based not on qualities of sentience, but on membership of the human species.

 

[cassini]

The teaching of the Church on the rights of animals and humans is very interesting.

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.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The perfect Catholic understanding. thanks Br JR.

 

[cassini]

There is a place for empathy in all interactions. In modern Western society, where many people are far removed from the source of their food, many people are shocked to discover the conditions in which factory-farmed animals are raised. This is what leads many people to become vegetarian, or to do what I do, which is buy only organically raised meat and organic animal products (which leads, for financial reasons, to a largely vegetarian diet anyway!)

By the same token, it was necessary for our prehistoric hunter-gatherer ancestors to wear fur, and often this was a by-product of the animals they hunted for meat (survival needs tend to favour efficiency, after all). These days it is not necessary for our clothing to be made from animal skins, so the desire of ‘fashionable’ types to wear fur must also be considered trivial.

Here’s where you and I fundamentally disagree. My understanding is that all animals - humans included - exist in their own right as part of a network of interrelationships. Furthermore, I don’t see how the belief that animals exist for humans could possibly apply to any of those animals who existed for millions of years before humans evolved…

As a retired mink farmer I am an expert in addressing thinking like this. Before I start let me say I am also an expert on animal husbandry and behaviour. I have been in the fore-front of this ‘animal rights’ ideology and now you are getting it straight from the horses mouth if you pardon the pun.

I spent 40 years in the mink raising and killing business and visited hundreds of killing houses acquiring feedstuffs for my animals. John the Baptist wore a camel skin. Christ ordered the Apostles to haul aboard many fish. Do you know how such fish die? The sufficate to death, sometimes it takes minutes, some fish hours. Animal rights would use their propaganda machine to compare this to a human being slowly drowned. That is torture so Christ was responsible for torture. Now of all, Christ knows exactly what animals and fish experience, no consciousness of suffering of any kind because animals and fish do not think like humans do. Ever see the zebras after one of their herd is caught by lions? The just go back eating grass.
Those of us familiar with the abattoirs know the difference between cruelty and the normal practice of killing animals according to veterinary recommendations and practice. there are those who would faint if they saw an animal put down, so what we are talking about here are human sensitivities, not cruelty.

Now the vegan fraud. As seen above vegans see themselves as removed from animal exploitation and perceived cruelty. This has to be some sort of joke. In Australia and Ireland
countless millions of rabbits we given a spreading virus to kill them because they were eating the vegans carrots and cabbage. They died over a three week period, bloated, blind, unable to eat or drink. Then along came DDT. The number af animals killed or rendered infertile by this carrot preserver is countless. Then there is the forest clearances to grow more carrots. Countless billions of creatures were and are wiped off the face of the earth. So the next time you hear a vegan say he is saving all the animals in the world give him the facts. I could go on

Now the fur wearing. No need to wear fur they say. Popes have fur in their clothing rooms. The fact that fur is one of the greenist products around is ignored. The animal rights crowd want you to use oil based products instead. Now want to guess the number of animals subjected to slow deaths as a result of oil to make an assortment of synthetics? Mink are now domesticated and farm reared. This means one no longer has to kill wild animals at best or prevents the extinction of fur bearing wild animals at least. Anti-fur is anti-rich begrudgery. The fact that the poor raise the minks and make a living off the rich who buy them is missed along the line. The ‘not necessary’ argument is nonsense. I can think of a thousand things ‘not necessary’. So does this mean we can go out and try to stop people doing things ‘not necessary’?

I could go on but I think you will get the picture. Rest assured that in my 35 years all my animals were treated well. Plenty of food and water, a warm box of hay to sleep in and breed in, a clean cage to run in, a vet to cure all their ailments and a quick dispatching when the time had come. Nevertheless the ‘animal rights’ people depict me as a sadist,a perpetrator of cruelty and even told me I will go to hell for it.

 

[severus68]

As a retired mink farmer I am an expert in addressing thinking like this. Before I start let me say I am also an expert on animal husbandry and behaviour. I have been in the fore-front of this ‘animal rights’ ideology and now you are getting it straight from the horses mouth if you pardon the pun.

I spent 40 years in the mink raising and killing business and visited hundreds of killing houses acquiring feedstuffs for my animals. John the Baptist wore a camel skin. Christ ordered the Apostles to haul aboard many fish. Do you know how such fish die? The sufficate to death, sometimes it takes minutes, some fish hours. Animal rights would use their propaganda machine to compare this to a human being slowly drowned. That is torture so Christ was responsible for torture. Now of all, Christ knows exactly what animals and fish experience, no consciousness of suffering of any kind because animals and fish do not think like humans do. Ever see the zebras after one of their herd is caught by lions? The just go back eating grass.
Those of us familiar with the abattoirs know the difference between cruelty and the normal practice of killing animals according to veterinary recommendations and practice. there are those who would faint if they saw an animal put down, so what we are talking about here are human sensitivities, not cruelty.

Now the vegan fraud. As seen above vegans see themselves as removed from animal exploitation and perceived cruelty. This has to be some sort of joke. In Australia and Ireland
countless millions of rabbits we given a spreading virus to kill them because they were eating the vegans carrots and cabbage. They died over a three week period, bloated, blind, unable to eat or drink. Then along came DDT. The number af animals killed or rendered infertile by this carrot preserver is countless. Then there is the forest clearances to grow more carrots. Countless billions of creatures were and are wiped off the face of the earth. So the next time you hear a vegan say he is saving all the animals in the world give him the facts. I could go on

Now the fur wearing. No need to wear fur they say. Popes have fur in their clothing rooms. The fact that fur is one of the greenist products around is ignored. The animal rights crowd want you to use oil based products instead. Now want to guess the number of animals subjected to slow deaths as a result of oil to make an assortment of synthetics? Mink are now domesticated and farm reared. This means one no longer has to kill wild animals at best or prevents the extinction of fur bearing wild animals at least. Anti-fur is anti-rich begrudgery. The fact that the poor raise the minks and make a living off the rich who buy them is missed along the line. The ‘not necessary’ argument is nonsense. I can think of a thousand things ‘not necessary’. So does this mean we can go out and try to stop people doing things ‘not necessary’?

I could go on but I think you will get the picture. Rest assured that in my 35 years all my animals were treated well. Plenty of food and water, a warm box of hay to sleep in and breed in, a clean cage to run in, a vet to cure all their ailments and a quick dispatching when the time had come. Nevertheless the ‘animal rights’ people depict me as a sadist,a perpetrator of cruelty and even told me I will go to hell for it.

This thread is about whether animals have souls. You are repeating here what you have said in another thread.

So vegans and vegetarians are frauds? S its okay to do anything and indulge ourselves? so everything is alright and becomes necessary because we want it? So its okay to cause suffering to get things we don;t really need jst because we are humans? This is not being stewards of God’s creation.

 

[Robintrinket]

Yes, animals have souls as the Bible states and Pope John Paul II.
They also have feelings/emotions.
They belong to God and Jesus’ redemptive work includes them (see Col. 1).
God put them in our care to protect and someday we will be held accountable (see Hebrews 4:13).
Jan

Where does the Bible say that animals have souls? And when and where did John Paul II say this?

 

[Robintrinket]

So its okay to cause suffering to get things we don;t really need jst because we are humans?

If the apostles were torturing the fish, it would be wrong under any circumstances, otherwise you are a moral relativist. Moral relativism is also what Sair’s thinking is leading towards. If killing an animal is the same as killing a human, and you can kill an animal because of a “need” or to bring about the “greatest overall happiness”, then won’t that lead to the idea that you can kill a human because of a “need” or to bring about the “greatest overall happiness”? You can see that this way of thinking causes human life to be devalued.

 

[JReducation]

**“If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men.”

-St. Francis of Assisi’’**

For the rest of the Catholic story, read post 20. Oh, by the way, St. Thomas Aquinas, not Pope John Paul II, said that animals have a material soul.

There is an interesting work in progress about life after death. I can’t recall the name of it, but I read a synopsis of it and it’s quite interesting. The theologian who is working on it proposes that “Heaven is not bald.” I had to laugh when I heard that, because I never thought of it that way. He goes not to hypothesyze that if heaven is the fulfillment of all our joys, it is conceivable that God will not deprive us of the joys that receive from the created world, such as pets.

You have to remember, this is a hypothesis. But it’s an interesting concept. Heaven is not a sterile or bald place where there is nothing to do or no cause of joy. All joy is found in God. Whatever gives us joy, our pets, our plants, our seashell collection, whatever, may be found in God in some strange way that we cannot forsee. It’s interesting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[vz71]

This thread is about whether animals have souls. You are repeating here what you have said in another thread.

Interesting that you will cry foul that a response is off topic but do not cry foul of the post (equally off-topic) that prompted the response.

I guess you only care about the rules when they fit your own agenda…

 

[Godscre]

**“If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men.”

-St. Francis of Assisi’’**

For the rest of the Catholic story, read post 20. Oh, by the way, St. Thomas Aquinas, not Pope John Paul II, said that animals have a material soul.

There is an interesting work in progress about life after death. I can’t recall the name of it, but I read a synopsis of it and it’s quite interesting. The theologian who is working on it proposes that “Heaven is not bald.” I had to laugh when I heard that, because I never thought of it that way. He goes not to hypothesyze that if heaven is the fulfillment of all our joys, it is conceivable that God will not deprive us of the joys that receive from the created world, such as pets.

Please visit this link for an article written by Deborah Jones, PhD which gives alot of information about who said what concerning animal souls.
all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

You have to remember, this is a hypothesis. But it’s an interesting concept. Heaven is not a sterile or bald place where there is nothing to do or no cause of joy. All joy is found in God. Whatever gives us joy, our pets, our plants, our seashell collection, whatever, may be found in God in some strange way that we cannot forsee. It’s interesting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Godscre]

Where does the Bible say that animals have souls? And when and where did John Paul II say this?

This article about animals having souls was written by Deborah Jones, PhD, a Catholic who has done her research.
all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

 

[Godscre]

Please visit an excellent article about animals having souls by Deborah Jones, PhD at this link: all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

 

[severus68]

Interesting that you will cry foul that a response is off topic but do not cry foul of the post (equally off-topic) that prompted the response.

I guess you only care about the rules when they fit your own agenda…

I was not “crying foul”, just pointing it out. What is your point really please? Any point to it?

 

[Brendan]

Yes, animals have souls as the Bible states and Pope John Paul II.

Yes, because all living material creatures have souls. That is what distinguishes living matter from dead matter. This is true for amoebas up to humans.

They also have feelings/emotions.

Not true, that requires a rational soul, which animals do not have, they have only a material soul.

They belong to God and Jesus’ redemptive work includes them (see Col. 1).

Really, so you are saying that animals sin and are in need of redemption?

God put them in our care to protect and someday we will be held accountable (see Hebrews 4:13).
Jan

True, but remember that God also gave us licence to use them in just ways, including as food and clothing.

 

[JReducation]

Please visit an excellent article about animals having souls by Deborah Jones, PhD at this link: all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

There is nothing new there. The Holy Father is using the same language that Francis of Assisi introduced in the Middle Ages, that animals are our brothers and sisters. And this was followed by Aquinas who said that animals have a material soul, which just reaffirmed the fraterntiy between humans and animals of which Francis had spoken about 25 years before. The difference was how they go to the same point. Francis got there through scripture and Aquinas through logic. Pope John Paul II brings both together and his is quoted in the CCC. See one of my previous posts.

In fact, the Catholic teaching has never said that animals exist for man. It says that animals exist to give glory to God and that they do so by their very existence. What the Church does hold to is the natural order. In the natural order there is always a hunter and a prey. At the top of that order is man. However, this natural order is not a license for cruelty of animals or abuse and unwarranted destruction of their natural habit. Even in the natural order, the predator hunts out of necessity, not out of desire and the predator does not destroy the habitat of his prey. In that regard the lower animals are smarter than humans. They follow a certain natural logic, for lack of a beter term. If you destroy the natural enviornment of your prey, you may as well close down your eatery. Human beings are not as practical. And we thought we were smart.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Brendan]

In fact, the Catholic teaching has never said that animals exist for man. It says that animals exist to give glory to God and that they do so by their very existence. )

That is also true of the Sun, Moon, frost and snow. They too give glory to God by their very existance. (Daniel 3)

 

[JReducation]

Yes, because all living material creatures have souls. That is what distinguishes living matter from dead matter. This is true for amoebas up to humans.

This is true. It was already held long ago.

Not true, that requires a rational soul, which animals do not have, they have only a material soul.

Behavioral psychology demonstrates that animals do have emotions. Emotions are not dependant on the soul, in either the lower animals or the human animal. Emotions are a function of the mind and self-awareness. The greater the self-awareness, the more focussed the emotions.

Now we have neuropsychology, which can actually pin point the biological roots of many emotions. Those animasl whose brains posess the same areas as humans, will experience the same emotions. The greatest proof to this is pharmacology. We have seen domestic pets treated for neurotic behaviors with thes same psychothropic medictions used on human beings such as Prozac, xanax and others and produce the same results. They do experience feelings of anxiety, stress, depression, fear, loneliness, boredom, joy, friendliness, security, affection and even hatred. They even have memories. Also, another solid proof that animals have emotions is that most animals with a well developed brain dream. Dreams are one of the mind’s way of dealing with emotions and memories.

Really, so you are saying that animals sin and are in need of redemption?

Animals do not sin, because they don’t have a moral law. The have social rules or pack rules. Those are different. However, St. Francis did teach us that animals are placed on earth for our redemption. In his Canticle of the Creatures he walks us through the theology of creation and incarnation and shows (in three movements) how all of creation points God out to man and reveals to man a Divine Attribute. Animals and the rest of creation are part of God’s plan for our salvation. In scripture we see the theme long before Francis wrote his theological canticle in the Canticle of Daniel, where he calls on all creatures to bless the Lord. The point that scripture and mystics are trying to teach us is that animals and nature do what God intended them to do, while we do not

The CCC also points out that God showers his providential love and care over all living beings, because they give him Glory. In this regard, they are also part of the redemptive work of God. There is nothing in creation that is not meant for God’s redemptive work of man.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his book on Jesus of Nazareth, points out that Jesus goes to the desert to resotre order between man and nature, before beginning his public ministry. That begs the question, why would that be necessary? Benedict answers by saying that it is necessary, becaues nature is what God created as sacred space where he could rule man and draw him into his love. Again, we see the theme of redemption and nature being interconnected. God redeams man through his son who becomes an animal and his son restores the natural order between humanity and creation, so that God can do his work in the sacred space that he created. That sacred space has other living beings, besides man. They are not there by accident. They are willed by the Creator as necessary.

Do animals have a sould? Yes, a material soul.

Do animals have emotions? Many do, depending on how developed a brain they have.

Do animals play a role in man’s salvation? Yes. They are created by God as part of the sacred space in which God will rule over man. They also exemplify for man how to live according to God’s will for each creature.

Do animals sin? No. They were not the beneficiaries of the commandments nor are they the victims of original sin.

Do animals reason? Yes, depending on the development of their brain.

Are all animals the same? No. There is an order

Do animals have rights? Yes, as stipulated in the CCC.

Are our pets smarter than us? Many times. They don’t have these discussioins. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF