Exactly, which is a rational soul is required. To be self-aware requires the knower to have the capability to understand what it means to be aware, you cannot be self-aware if you do not know what ‘aware’ is. For to know one exists implies sufficent reason to deduce that there there are alternate states to existance (non-existance)
I read this. We need to be careful about what we mean when we say “souls”. When people say that animals do not have souls, they do not mean that are not living. All the article basically says is that animals are living, which everyone knows. When we say they do not have souls, we mean they do not have a spiritual soul with intellect and free will that will live forever, as a human. If they did, they would also be created in God’s image. Since when people hear the word “soul” they think “spiritual soul”, it is confusing to say that animals have souls.
One other thing to keep in mind is that the author received a Ph.D in “Animal Theology” from a Welsh University whose department of Theology is vetted by the Church of England and does not have a mandatum from the Church. The theology being represented is not necessarily Catholic (even though the author is Catholic)
What about the paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church before the part that says animals bless and give God glory, number 2415? It says, “Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity,” and also “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(emphasis is mine), including generations to come…”
I agree. The point I was trying to make is that they do not exist for us humans to treat as we wish. The CCC is very clear on this, as was Aquinas before that, and ST. Francis before that, and Daniel before that, and Genesis before that.
But wait a minute. Slow down. Our self-awareness does not come from our soul. It comes from our mind. The human soul does not make judgements. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus argued this with Aquinas and he was never able to prove them wrong. Actually, Bonaventure called it the heart and intellect. But today, we call it the mind.
Thank you for this.This is true. It was already held long ago.
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.
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
Let’s break these three ideas down.
How then is the power excercised by our mind (intellect) NOT a power of the soul? I don’t remember Boneventure stating that it a biological process simply relying on the power of animation?But wait a minute. Slow down. Our self-awareness does not come from our soul. It comes from our mind. The human soul does not make judgements. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus argued this with Aquinas and he was never able to prove them wrong. Actually, Bonaventure called it the heart and intellect. But today, we call it the mind.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
That’s because he does not use that language. He explains human as having body, sould and intellect. When he describes the journey of Francis soul into God in his famous work by a similar name, the explains how the intellect knows God, the body is the host of the senses and the soul desires God. He introduces the whole concept of mind, matter and spirit using a very interesting Trinitarian modeal. But that’s another thread.
Ok, dusting off my copy of The Mind’s Journey ( I do remember the various Trinitarian linkagesThat’s because he does not use that language. He explains human as having body, sould and intellect. When he describes the journey of Francis soul into God in his famous work by a similar name, the explains how the intellect knows God, the body is the host of the senses and the soul desires God. He introduces the whole concept of mind, matter and spirit using a very interesting Trinitarian modeal. But that’s another thread.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
)We’re getting a little off the topic of thread. But this is very interesting. Yes, you read it correctly. We have to remember that Bonaventure was not a psychologist. He uses the classic concepts of the day. He refers to rhetoric as the rudder, if you will, of the emotions. Franciscan scholars today understand that Bonaventure is trying to place the emotions in what would later be called the mind, which is the same place where the intellect exists.Ok, dusting off my copy of The Mind’s Journey ( I do remember the various Trinitarian linkages
Since Boneventure lists the powers of the soul in a three fold way ( memory, intellegence and will). But chapter 3, para 6 seems to place the emotions again with the intellect. and further divides the intellect 3 fold, as grammer, logic and retoric. Placing rhetoric as the stirer of emotion.
Which would seem that, even to Boneventure, emotions are a function of the intellect too.
If you’ll excuse my arrogance as someone who has never dealt with other animals in a commercial capacity as such (beyond buying animal products for consumption), I must say that I respect your knowledge - but that doesn’t preclude my contextualising your knowledge in terms of the interests of the industry in which you have operated. Clearly it is in the interests of said industry to treat animals as commodities, and to justify doing so. It is only natural that you would seek to argue against any notion of animal rights.
The notion that Christ (if such a person actually existed - but that’s a topic for another thread altogether, of a kind which is currently under a ban) ate fish is not actually a justification for the mass killing and eating of fish in our day and age, where it is not necessary to our wellbeing to do so - it has become a matter of preference, not need. Having said thus much, it may well be as researchers claim, that line-caught fish suffer less than net-caught fish. However, it’s more efficient, economically speaking, to catch fish in nets in huge numbers, because lots of people desire to eat fish. Any person who declines to do so lessens the need for mass suffering of fish. To me, that’s enough motivation to forego eating fish on a regular basis.
If that is the case, we ought to be perfectly content with abortion and euthanasia - in the case of the former, there is no capacity to suffer; in the case of the latter, there is a conscious choice on the part of the person involved to end their life, to minimise their suffering. 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.
There is a big difference between acting in such a way as to reduce suffering, and acting in such a way as to ignore suffering. Are you seriously suggesting that rabbits would not have been infected with a deadly disease if there were no vegans? Surely not. Your argument amounts to claiming that carrots scream when they are pulled from the ground. In any case, the proliferation of rabbits - particularly here in Australia - is directly traceable to the actions of humans. We aren’t always good at cleaning up our own mess.
Speaking as someone who prefers cotton, linen and wool (which doesn’t require the death of sheep) to synthetic fibres, I can’t really sympathise with this argument.
It ought to be so, if the unnecessary actions cause suffering. I find it very difficult to sympathise with poor Chinese furriers who skin the animals alive in order to supply European couturiers. Again, farming of animals for fur is only done because wild stocks have been depleted - it’s another example of humans trying to clean up our own mess, and missing the point in the process.
It’s good to hear that you have applied a sensitive and caring approach to your work. But while the industries in question persist, there will always be those who sacrifice compassion for profit. Those of us who decline to eat factory-raised meat or to wear leather and fur are simply doing our bit to reduce the systematic suffering of other sentient creatures.
Is 11 says that we will all live in harmony together where there is no more suffering (animals do suffer).
1 Cor. 10:31 does not really make an animal rights message. It is given after telling people what to do with regards to eating meat that might have been sacrificed to idols. Verses 10:25-27, says, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience… If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising a question on the grounds of conscience.”
For that matter, animals suffer and die in nature all the time, and some kill other animals to eat. Are you saying they wouldn’t suffer and die if we didn’t raise them for meat? In your line of thinking, why does it even matter if someone reduces or ignores suffering?
This is where we disagree. Humans are made in God’s image, are each unique, precious, and have infinite value. If you do not believe this, valuing human life and reducing human suffering-- or reducing any suffering, for that matter, makes no sense. You seem to agree that humans are different than animals, because you think that we should be concerned about suffering and modify our behavior. Animals do not reflect on causing suffering and make choices about their behavior. This is because they do not have spiritual souls, and are not moral creatures.
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.