Do Animals Have Souls?

[tonyrey]

I
All life is valuable - even if only to individual living entities - and should not be reduced to the level of a mere commodity.

If all life is valuable it must have been valuable before human beings existed. It is absurd to
think life is valuable merely because we think it is. If that were the case we would have no right to condemn some one who tortures an animal. It follows that life is objectively valuable and not just an arbitrary opinion. In other words we live in a universe where there is good and evil regardless of what we think. Even if the whole of the human race voted in favour of torturing animals it would still be wrong… And that is a good reason to believe animals have souls…

 

[Detales]

Monk: “Does a dog have a soul?”

Joshu: “MU!”

 

[Robintrinket]

I don’t find it a valid argument to claim that animals in the wild suffer, and so we shouldn’t worry about the animals we raise for meat and other consumable products.

Then why do you say it is ok to give the rabbits a virus, just because they might get one in the wild?

 

[Robintrinket]

The fact that our actions can and do affect the lives and wellbeing of other creatures, and that we can comprehend the effects of our actions, is enough reason for us to assume moral responsibility for how we deal with other creatures. Suggesting that we don’t have to take responsibility for our actions because other animals can’t is akin to a young child claiming that she doesn’t have to pick up her toys because her little brother didn’t do so.

Then you are, in a way, recognizing humans as spiritual, because you see humans as having responsibilites, but animals as not. The fact that “we can comprehend the effects of our actions” is what makes us spiritual. People by their very nature are spiritual, and need a cause and purpose in their life. Some try to fill this void with environmentalism or animal rights, making these things, in a sense, their religion.

 

[Robintrinket]

Suggesting that we don’t have to take responsibility for our actions because other animals can’t is akin to a young child claiming that she doesn’t have to pick up her toys because her little brother didn’t do so.

If this kid had no parents, the thought that she even *should *pick up her toys would probably not occur to her on her own.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t find it a valid argument to claim that animals in the wild suffer, and so we shouldn’t worry about the animals we raise for meat and other consumable products. Domestic animals are our responsibility in a way that wild animals never can be, so their suffering or otherwise ought to be a moral consideration for us.

We are also responsible for any unnecessary suffering caused to animals in the wild.

Once again I’m butting up against the is/ought dichotomy - that one can’t infer an ought from an is. I don’t have much time for this notion, I should point out. The fact that our actions can and do affect the lives and wellbeing of other creatures, and that we can comprehend the effects of our actions, is enough reason for us to assume moral responsibility for how we deal with other creatures.

I entirely agree with you! If “ought” cannot be inferred from what “is” what is “ought” based on? Thin air! All morality can be reduced to the simple fact that life is valuable. Otherwise values become no more than “efficacious concepts”.

All life is valuable - even if only to individual living entities - and should not be reduced to the level of a mere commodity. All of our actions towards others - be they human or otherwise - should be considered and undertaken with respect.

You anticipated what I have just written! (I was dealing with your points one by one without looking ahead.) It is very refreshing that we are in agreement on what is one of the most important issues…

To return to the OP without being contentious. If we have souls then why should animals not have them? It does not make sense to say they are innocent - because they are not morally responsible - but, paradoxically, they are free of guilt!

 

[geo2t]

Ever watch a Dog? it is all LOVE which causes us to remember them in our heart. Are they going to be with us physically? No, but they are with us in our minds and will stay there. Is that the Soul of a Dog, to be remembered always in our Minds with Love? That is the best answer that I can come up with.

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

I believe that St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Holy Father have made this very clear.

1. Animals DO have a material soul.
2. Animals DO offer glory to God by their very existence.
3. Animals DO have the right to be treated humanely and responsibly.
4. Animals ARE NOT culpable of sin by the very fac that they are not heirs to Original sin.
5. Animals DO have a place in salvation history. They form part of the sacred space in which God operates. God did not place them into our space because he has nothing better to do. Everything that the Creator placed into existence serves his eternal plan for man’s salvation, often in some mysterious way that man cannot compehend.

For a good theological exposition of the role of creation in God’s plan of salvation, one should read St. Francis Canticle of The Creatures from a theological perspective, analyzing each statement against the writings of the Franciscan school of theology. It’s a masterpiece of theology, because in a very poetic and very simple fashion, Francis lays out the reason and place for creation in salvation history, which would later be explained by the Franciscan Schola.

In a recent statement about the importance of the relationship between Christians and Muslims Pope Benedict referred to St. Francis’ Canticle of the Creatures to support his point.

I would strongly suggest that anyone who is interested in this topic read these works. I can suggest a few names of theologians who go into this work.

St. Bonaventure, St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, St. Lawrence of Brindisi, Bl. John Duns Scouts, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Cardinal Ratzinger, Regis Armstrong, OFM, Cap, Murray Bodo, and OFM, Ignacio Larranaga, OFM, Cap. They are all prominent writers in the Franciscan Schola.

I must confess that the role of animals in Salvation History is one about which I know very little. I don’t deal much in the area of metaphysics and eschatology. I deal more in Spiritual and Mystical Theology. But the little that I’ve read, I’ve found beautiful, because it clearly demonstrates that nothing is an accident. God has a divine plan and everything that we see in creation is part of His plan to save us. It’s always very refereshing and inspiring to remember that I can look at my pet cat and it reminds me that God loves me in a very special way. And yes, I do have two cats. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Biff_Hooper]

Hey all,

This really happened. Some years ago I was teaching a confirmation class. The topic was “Do animals have souls.” One girl became incensed when I informed the class that animals have only mortal souls while humans have immortal souls. She had a favorite pet dog, and she didn’t think that heaven would be tolerable if her pet wouldn’t be in heaven with her. Nevertheless, I told her, that is what the Church teaches…

Come Confirmation day, when the Bishop had all the kids assembled before Mass to give them final instructions and quiz them on the faith, he got on the subject of souls. And who would you guess he picked on. The very girl. He asked her: “What kind of souls do animals have?” She gave me an accusing look, as if I had ratted her out to the bishop (I had not!!), and then gave the right answer. The Holy Spirit has a real sense of humor at times.

Just thought I’d share that.

Biff

 

[Rence]

Hiyas

God created humankind in His image. Separate from all other creation.
All life has Spirit.
All life has worth.
IMHO God made no mistakes.
Will my puppy go to Heaven? I think, yes… If God knows I need my puppy.
As always, just my thoughts

 

[Rence]

Hey all,

This really happened. Some years ago I was teaching a confirmation class. The topic was “Do animals have souls.” One girl became incensed when I informed the class that animals have only mortal souls while humans have immortal souls. She had a favorite pet dog, and she didn’t think that heaven would be tolerable if her pet wouldn’t be in heaven with her. Nevertheless, I told her, that is what the Church teaches…

Come Confirmation day, when the Bishop had all the kids assembled before Mass to give them final instructions and quiz them on the faith, he got on the subject of souls. And who would you guess he picked on. The very girl. He asked her: “What kind of souls do animals have?” She gave me an accusing look, as if I had ratted her out to the bishop (I had not!!), and then gave the right answer. The Holy Spirit has a real sense of humor at times.

Just thought I’d share that.

Biff

That’s a cute story for sure! I bet you wish you had a picture of that cuteness! thanks for sharing

However I’ve given answers I didn’t believe to be true, because I knew that answer was the “correct” one on a test or quiz. I wonder if your little Muppet did the same,or if she came around but didn’t like it.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I must confess that the role of animals in Salvation History is one about which I know very little.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

On the contrary, I’ve enjoyed reading all of your posts on this thread and I’ve learned a lot . Thank you kindly.

 

[AidanM32]

I was reading a magazine the other day… and there was pcychic page, were people write in and get messages from the loved ones and there was this women who wrote to say her dog had died last year and that she was very upset and missed him… the pcychic said that your dog is in heaven and that he still plays in the garden and that he loved you being his owner and that he loved you too.

So there you go animals must have souls… i believe in pcychic’s but is it against the catholic religion to believe in them?

Aidan.

 

[Robintrinket]

It does not make sense to say they are innocent - because they are not morally responsible - but, paradoxically, they are free of guilt!

What is this supposed to mean? Animals are not morally responsible. That is the spiritual part of humans, free will and intellect, that makes humans “in God’s image.” If something is not morally responsible, doesn’t that mean it is free of moral guilt?

 

[Robintrinket]

I was reading a magazine the other day… and there was pcychic page, were people write in and get messages from the loved ones and there was this women who wrote to say her dog had died last year and that she was very upset and missed him… the pcychic said that your dog is in heaven and that he still plays in the garden and that he loved you being his owner and that he loved you too.

So there you go animals must have souls… i believe in pcychic’s but is it against the catholic religion to believe in them?

Aidan.

Listining to a psychic is against the Catholic religion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (number 2116) says: “All forms of divination are to be rejected: recource to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena or clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. The contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.”

 

[Robintrinket]

Accepting the mass slaughter of animals, however humanely (and unless specific care is taken of every single animal, that can’t be guaranteed) but not accepting abortion and euthanasia is, in the very literal sense that Peter Singer has described, speciesist. We are taking the same criterion - suffering - and applying different standards to different species.

Humans, houseflies, and cockroaches are different “species”, so if you value a human’s life over that of a cockroach or a housefly, you’re a speciest. If you swat a mosquito, you value yourself over the mosquito, or if you try to kill your dog’s fleas, you value your dog over the fleas. No one should be criticized for being a “speciest”, because anyone with any common sense whatsoever is a “speciest.”

 

[Robintrinket]

All life is valuable - even if only to individual living entities - and should not be reduced to the level of a mere commodity. All of our actions towards others - be they human or otherwise - should be considered and undertaken with respect.

If humans are seen as the same as animals, and animals can be killed to “bring about the greatest happiness”, then human life will be “reduced to the level of a mere commodity”.

 

[tonyrey]

It does not make sense to say they are innocent - because they are not morally responsible - but, paradoxically, they are free of guilt!

It does indeed! But when an animal is “punished” for misbehaving people often say “It’s wrong to hurt an innocent creature” - which I pointed out is illogical. The animal is not innocent but neither is it guilty. It shouldn’t be punished but persuaded to act sociably.

 

[Robintrinket]

It does indeed! But when an animal is “punished” for misbehaving people often say “It’s wrong to hurt an innocent creature” - which I pointed out is illogical. The animal is not innocent but neither is it guilty. It shouldn’t be punished but persuaded to act sociably.

 

[JReducation]

Listining to a psychic is against the Catholic religion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (number 2116) says: “All forms of divination are to be rejected: recource to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena or clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. The contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.”

Just a quick note here. The psychics that citation 2116 refers to is the business up the street that charges you to tell you what you may or may not want to hear.

From the time of the Old Testament to this day the Church has revered many men and women who had psychic powers. These men and women are not in business. Psychology calls them psychic and it is not referring to Madam Palm and Fifty who reads you palm for $50. Mystical theology does not use the term psychic, but does acknowledge that there are and have always been men and women who can read the soul. What are they reading? They are reading your mind. They know what is there, even when you have forgotten. A good modern example is Padre Pio. These people have a very special gift. They can look at a person and read what is deeply hidden. There have been others like Padre Pio. Brother Andre was another one of those gifted people. He could read a person’s illnesses. There are other people who have this psychic gift, who are not Blesseds or canonized saints.

The few people whom I have met with this gift in my ministry doing spiritual guidance, I refer to them as having the gift of profound insight. Those who truly have the gift use it as a gift. They won’t charge you $50 to tell you a bunch of nonsense. The truth is that there are not many people who have these gifts. They are an extraordinary minority.

During the Middle Ages there was not such thing as Behavioral Psychology or the study of the para-normal. These folks did not get labels. Behavioral Psychology would describe someone like Francis of Assisi as an Animal Whisperer. There is much historical evidence, from eye-witnesses, that our Holy Father had the ability to understand animals and communicate with them in a way that was out of the ordinary. There are two very famous stories, one in which he asks the larks to stop singing so he can finish preaching and another in which he tames a wolf at Gubbio.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF