Do Animals Have Souls?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kooldood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
Actually it is a spiritual soul. The word soul itself implies spirit. I think the difference for which you’re looking is between a material soul and an immortal soul. Human beings have an imortal soul and animals have a material soul. A material soul dies when the the creature dies.

As to being moral creatures capable of sinning, that is not the product of having a soul. It is the product of having a conscience and free will. The lower animals do not have a conscience and free will. They have consciousness, which is different from a conscience. They act on two things: instinct and conditioning. Neither are free choices. Human beings have both conscience and consciousness. We act on three things: instinct, conditioning and choice. Choice is where sin and virtue enter the picture. We have a conscience that allows us to tell the difference between good and evil and we have choice that allows us to do one or the other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, by spiritual I meant “not material”. By saying our souls are “spiritual” I meant they are independent of matter, and they live on after we die. We usually use the word “spirit” (even more than the word “soul”) to mean that immortal part of us that is independent of our bodies, so it is especially confusing to say that an animal has a “spirit”. An animal does not have an independent “spiritual” part that will live on after its death. So if you are using the word “spiritual” to mean “independent of matter”, an animal does not have a “spiritual” soul.

I think this all depends on how you are using the word “soul”-- to mean the “substantial form of a living creature” (as the book Following Christ in the World defines it) or to mean an independent spiritual part.
 
Robintrinket said:
Yes, by spiritual I meant “not material”. By saying our souls are “spiritual” I meant they are independent of matter, and they live on after we die. We usually use the word “spirit” (even more than the word “soul”) to mean that immortal part of us that is independent of our bodies, so it is especially confusing to say that an animal has a “spirit”. An animal does not have an independent “spiritual” part that will live on after its death. So if you are using the word “spiritual” to mean “independent of matter”, an animal does not have a “spiritual” soul.

I think this all depends on how you are using the word “soul”-- to mean the “substantial form of a living creature” (as the book Following Christ in the World defines it) or to mean an independent spiritual part.
Click to expand...
Point taken! The primal instinct of many animals that allows them to survive is evidence of a confined will. It is however, more apparent with some animals than others. This leads me to a new question, are Human souls the only souls that are unique? Dogs for instance, often possess loyalties that seem almost human. It may be our bond with them that “imitates” love; this makes it harder to accept that they won’t be with us eternally. You would have an easier time convincing me that a fish has no soul than a dog. Do you believe that there is a difference between the soul of a dog and the soul of a fish?
 
Maybe Lassie is in heaven, she was a good dog, but I doubt if some pitbull who tore a child apart would be in heaven! Just kidding, I don’t know if animals would be in heaven or hell.

Nobody really knows what the afterlife will be like, but probably Hell will be quite painful and Heaven quite pleasant, and Purgatory quite a struggle.

I think one of the requirements to get to Heaven or even Purgatory is to believe in God the Trinity. Otherwise no matter how “good” a soul you have, you cannot be saved.

However, I don’t know if this applies to animals. There might be some spirit animals in the afterlife - after all God can do anything.🙂
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Maybe Lassie is in heaven, she was a good dog, but I doubt if some pitbull who tore a child apart would be in heaven! Just kidding, I don’t know if animals would be in heaven or hell.

Nobody really knows what the afterlife will be like, but probably Hell will be quite painful and Heaven quite pleasant, and Purgatory quite a struggle.

I think one of the requirements to get to Heaven or even Purgatory is to believe in God the Trinity. Otherwise no matter how “good” a soul you have, you cannot be saved.

However, I don’t know if this applies to animals. There might be some spirit animals in the afterlife - after all God can do anything.🙂
Click to expand...
Exactly, it is God that decides.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I think one of the requirements to get to Heaven or even Purgatory is to believe in God the Trinity. Otherwise no matter how “good” a soul you have, you cannot be saved.)
Click to expand...
I doubt that. Then only Christians will be “saved,” whatever that means.
 
Call me naive. But can someone explain for me why a bunch of Catholics are debating something that is already established by the Church. Animals have a material soul that is unable to exist independent of the physical being. Humans have an imortal soul that continues to exist even after the death of the body. That’s the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and the Reformation communities. It is one of several points on which all Christians agree. So why are we discussing this again after it was settled in the Middle Ages? I’m confused as heck.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Call me naive. But can someone explain for me why a bunch of Catholics are debating something that is already established by the Church. Animals have a material soul that is unable to exist independent of the physical being. Humans have an imortal soul that continues to exist even after the death of the body. That’s the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and the Reformation communities. It is one of several points on which all Christians agree. So why are we discussing this again after it was settled in the Middle Ages? I’m confused as heck. Fraternally, Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Because it’s an interesting question. Some people may think it is “already established by the Church”; others may not be convinced. Why stifle discussion?
 
StAnastasia said:
Because it’s an interesting question. Some people may think it is “already established by the Church”; others may not be convinced. Why stifle discussion?
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that some people may find the discussion interesting, because many of these topics are. But I am always concerned that we inform the person who does not know that the Church has an answer to which all Catholics must give assent and one of the best proofs that this answer is right is the fact that it is held by all of Christianity, otherwise, some people may think that the answer is still forthcoming. We don’t want to do that to people. There are already too many unanswered questions out there, if you know what I mean.

If I may suggest a slight curve in the road. Maybe a good discussion is for people to show the history of the question and how the Church of the Middle Ages arrived at its conclusion. That would be on the same topic and would educate people in Church history and apologetics at the same time. Just my two cents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Call me naive. But can someone explain for me why a bunch of Catholics are debating something that is already established by the Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. It must be because some of these Catholics don’t accept what the Church has established on this.
 
JReducation said:
Call me naive. But can someone explain for me why a bunch of Catholics are debating something that is already established by the Church.
/QUOTE]

I don’t know. It must be because some of them don’t accept Church teaching.
Click to expand...
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I think one of the requirements to get to Heaven or even Purgatory is to believe in God the Trinity. Otherwise no matter how “good” a soul you have, you cannot be saved.

However, I don’t know if this applies to animals.
Click to expand...
I think that Baptism is what you are thinking of. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1257 says, “Baptism is neccesary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; that is why she is careful not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord…”

People who are not baptized may be saved by baptism of desire (which means they wanted to be baptized), according to the Catechism. It says in number 1260: “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have *desired Baptism explicitly *if they had known its necessity.”

Baptism, or any of the other sacraments, do not apply to animals because they are not moral creatures. They do not need salvation because they cannot merit eternal punishment or reward. Though as JReducation said, we don’t really even need to debate that.
 
StAnastasia said:
I doubt that. Then only Christians will be “saved,” whatever that means.
Click to expand...
Salvation, of course, means going to Heaven. When some non-Catholic asks you, “Are you saved?” you can’t answer them, because you aren’t yet, and whether or not you will be is not certain until your death.
 
JReducation said:
If I may suggest a slight curve in the road. Maybe a good discussion is for people to show the history of the question and how the Church of the Middle Ages arrived at its conclusion. That would be on the same topic and would educate people in Church history and apologetics at the same time. Just my two cents.
Fraternally,Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
JReducation, I agree that it’s good to look at the history. But philosophy and science did not end with the Middle Ages, and there may be good reason to revisit our model of the “soul” in the Third millennium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top