Dumb I know BUT is this a sin

[IntegraCatholic]

That’s pretty much it. Except to torture them or do things to them purely out of malice. They are for man’s use. They are property. They have the same rights as property.

Please point out to me where anything is said differently in Catholic Theology. We’ve already covered the CCC. At best, it is unclear; it certainly allows for a variety of interpretations. That being said, I would appreciate if we could get a more definitive source than that, say, something from a Church document (rather than a vague statement in the new catechism) or a reputable Catholic moral theologian.

 

[Newbie2]

Actually, there is more to the CCC:

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.195 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**.

Actually, I’m in the process of writing my Master’s degree thesis on this very subject. There is not a lot of explicit writing on the subject, in fact, very little. Most if it is implicit. This is an area of Catholic moral theology that has not been closely examined.

I do agree, though, that the CCC is open to some degree of interpretation. However, it would seem that a “religious respect for the integrity of creation” would imply some degree of compassion for animal species which extends beyond objecting to abject acts of cruelty. My take is that Catholic Theology embraces the notion of Animal welfare, but rejects that of animal “rights”.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I agree that we must respect animals and all things on account of their creation by God. That’s all I’ve been saying this entire time. I would be interested in an argument that would demonstrate dog and cock fighting to fall under abusing creation. As I said, I haven’t thought too much about it, but I don’t see a difference in the act itself of sicking a dog on a dog instead of a fox. The boisterous hunting is address in the ecclesiastical law for centuries insofar as it was forbidden to clerics on account of their state of life. No one has ever said it is sinful. I realize that there is a possibility for the fox to escape, while this isn’t really possible for the dog, but that doesn’t change the act itself. The act is the same, and the intention is the same. I don’t think this one circumstance would be of such weight that it would change the morality of the act.

That’s interesting to hear that you are writing a thesis about this. I’d be interested in reading it once you’ve completed it.

 

[Moscati]

That’s pretty much it. Except to torture them or do things to them purely out of malice. They are for man’s use. They are property. They have the same rights as property.

Please point out to me where anything is said differently in Catholic Theology. We’ve already covered the CCC. At best, it is unclear; it certainly allows for a variety of interpretations. That being said, I would appreciate if we could get a more definitive source than that, say, something from a Church document (rather than a vague statement in the new catechism) or a reputable Catholic moral theologian.

I’m not sure how authoritative you would consider these writers, but . . .

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

“All creatures are created from the same paternal heartbeat of God. Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first duty to them, but to stop here is a complete misapprehension of the intentions of providence. We have a higher mission. God wishes that we should succour them when they require it.” --St Francis of Assisi

“Animals have done us no harm and they have no power of resistance . . . There is something so very dreadful . . . in tormenting those who have never harmed us, who cannot defend themselves, who are utterly in our power.”—Cardinal John Henry Newman

“Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.”—CCC 2416

“Man must never hurt animals, must never ill-treat them nor torture them physically because they are sensitive creatures. If anyone told me that to achieve my purpose it would be sufficient to kill an ant, I would not do it.” --Pope John XXIII

“Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God.”—Luke 12:6

“The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel” —Proverbs 12:10

And of course, there’s always the story of Balaam’s ***. If God performs a miracle to make a donkey speak and it tells its owner to stop abusing it . . . I’m not sure God would be too keen on setting dogs on fire.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

No one is proposing setting dogs on fire. I said that if we take the CCC at face value, that this wouldn’t necessarily even be forbidden, which is why I asked for other sources.

All of what you said is fine and dandy, but none of them say doing otherwise is a sin. I’m not saying it’s the best thing to do or the most sophisticated thing to do, but I would like to see where someone says that dog fighting or cock fighting is sinful and to provide a reason for it.

If anyone told me that to achieve my purpose it would be sufficient to kill an ant, I would not do it." --Pope John XXIII

This is obviously an entirely misguided understanding of the role of animals. I am very surprised that even John XXIII would have come up with something so ridiculous. Do you have a source for this?

 

[Moscati]

Also, St. Thomas Aquinas definitely counts as a reputable moral theologian, and he opposed animal cruelty because of its deleterious effects on man’s treatment of his fellow man (like St. Francis in the quote below).

From the Catholic encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

"The scholastic theologians condemn the infliction of needless suffering on animals, chiefly because of the injurious effects on the character of the perpetrator. Thus St. Thomas, in his Summa Contra Gentiles (Book II, 112), after refuting the error that it is not lawful to take the lives of brutes, explains the import of the above-mentioned texts of Scripture. He says that these prohibitions are issued either ‘lest anyone by exercising cruelty towards brutes may become cruel also towards men; or, because an injury to brutes may result in loss to the owner, or on account of some symbolic signification.’ "

Wouldn’t deliberately injuring one’s moral character count as a sin?

 

[Moscati]

And . . . St. Francis insists that “Not to hurt our humble brethren [creatures] is our first duty to them.” Deliberately shirking a duty is also generally a sin, is it not?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

That is the issue. What constitutes needless? There is nothing wrong with hunting. How is it different for cock fighting? It is interesting to note, also, that men don’t actually do anything to the animals. They do it to themselves, so the argument from St. Thomas wouldn’t seem to apply to this instance. His argumentation is also important. The animals don’t deserve anything. The only evil would be in harming the property of another or in ill disposing oneself to treat other men improperly. We’ve already discussed the obligation to respect and preserve creation as a work of God. If someone goes to a dog fight or orchestrates one and doesn’t change his behavior towards men, it doesn’t seem he is committing a sin.

 

[Newbie2]

I agree that we must respect animals and all things on account of their creation by God. That’s all I’ve been saying this entire time. I would be interested in an argument that would demonstrate dog and cock fighting to fall under abusing creation. As I said, I haven’t thought too much about it, but I don’t see a difference in the act itself of sicking a dog on a dog instead of a fox. The boisterous hunting is address in the ecclesiastical law for centuries insofar as it was forbidden to clerics on account of their state of life. No one has ever said it is sinful. **I realize that there is a possibility for the fox to escape, while this isn’t really possible for the dog, but that doesn’t change the act itself. **The act is the same, and the intention is the same. I don’t think this one circumstance would be of such weight that it would change the morality of the act.

That’s interesting to hear that you are writing a thesis about this. I’d be interested in reading it once you’ve completed it.

I think that comparing the two activities is where it’s confusing you; it seems like you’re taking fox hunting as the moral norm, which some would argue it is not. I’m not familiar with such fox hunts…but do the hunters end up shooting the fox? Is the goal for the dogs to kill the fox? Just chase and corner him/her? I guess I’m at a loss for discussing the comparison to fox hunting as I don’t know what the endpoint of the hunt is supposed to be.

I suppose a case could be made that the practice of fox hunting is contrary to good stewardship, but again, I’m unfamiliar with the details of the hunt. My only exposure is the Disney movie.

But I am familiar somewhat with the practice of dog fighting. In training fighting dogs, a common practice for the “trainers” is to steal someone’s pet, usually starting out with a large breed, passive dog like a golden retriever, and train their dog to agressively attack and kill it. The goal is then to progressively have them kill other dogs of increasing ability to defend themselves until their fighting dog is ready to go up against an “equal”. That’s roughly the theory, anyway.

So the moral objection to dog fighting is cruelty.

In training, they take a dog out of a comfortable environment and throw him in with a killer with predictable results. Not to morally equate humans and animals, but that’s sort of like taking a child barely able to swim and throwing him into a shark tank. They are purposely indirectly inflicting terror, pain and death on an animal.

In fighting, two trained dogs are set on each other with the intent of the maiming and death of one of the animals, and the inevitable maiming of both.

I fail to see how anyone could see such acts are other than abject cruelty; such acts do not respect the “integrity of creation”, they are acts of deliberate destruction.

In terms of a thesis, I’m planning on exploring the notion of “animal rights” and “animal welfare” being two quite different things.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I think that comparing the two activities is where it’s confusing you; it seems like you’re taking fox hunting as the moral norm, which some would argue it is not.

Some may argue it, but it would be irrelevant. It was never considered to be anything less than an enjoyable recreation for centuries.

I’m not familiar with such fox hunts…but do the hunters end up shooting the fox? Is the goal for the dogs to kill the fox? Just chase and corner him/her? I guess I’m at a loss for discussing the comparison to fox hunting as I don’t know what the endpoint of the hunt is supposed to be.

The hunt (e.g., of foxes, though it was also common with other animals) basically included men riding around on horses with a pack of hunting dogs, chasing down other animals, and sicking the dogs on them. They didn’t shoot the animals, just got the hunting dogs to kill them.

But I am familiar somewhat with the practice of dog fighting. In training fighting dogs, a common practice for the “trainers” is to steal someone’s pet, usually starting out with a large breed, passive dog like a golden retriever, and train their dog to agressively attack and kill it. The goal is then to progressively have them kill other dogs of increasing ability to defend themselves until their fighting dog is ready to go up against an “equal”. That’s roughly the theory, anyway.

Okay, I can see that if someone steals another dog to do this that it would obviously be a sin. Otherwise, I don’t think it is much different from how attack dogs have been training in the past and are probably still trained today, either by the police or those using them for hunting.

So the moral objection to dog fighting is cruelty.

In training, they take a dog out of a comfortable environment and throw him in with a killer with predictable results.

That is what is done to the foxes, too. They have their natural habitat, and then you introduce a pack of attack dogs to kill them.

In fighting, two trained dogs are set on each other with the intent of the maiming and death of one of the animals, and the inevitable maiming of both.

This is the same in fox hunting.

I fail to see how anyone could see such acts are other than abject cruelty; such acts do not respect the “integrity of creation”, they are acts of deliberate destruction.

Yes, they are acts of destruction, but it is ordered toward something, that is, the recreation of man. Killing an animal to eat it is an act of destruction, but it is ordered toward something, the nutrition of man. An important circumstance that we haven’t really addressed as much is that men aren’t inflicting destruction on the dog. The other dog is. This seems more relevant than whether the dog can get away or not.

In terms of a thesis, I’m planning on exploring the notion of “animal rights” and “animal welfare” being two quite different things.

Sounds interesting. Have you come up with a simple definition of animal welfare?

 

[Moscati]

Okay, I can see that if someone steals another dog to do this that it would obviously be a sin. Otherwise, I don’t think it is much different from how attack dogs have been training in the past and are probably still trained today, either by the police or those using them for hunting.

So the moral objection to dog fighting is cruelty.

Yes, they are acts of destruction, but it is ordered toward something, that is, the recreation of man. Killing an animal to eat it is an act of destruction, but it is ordered toward something, the nutrition of man. An important circumstance that we haven’t really addressed as much is that men aren’t inflicting destruction on the dog. The other dog is. This seems more relevant than whether the dog can get away or not.

I don’t know how dogs were trained in the past, but having a dog progressively kill other dogs is certainly not how police dogs are trained now. A family friend of ours runs a K-9 unit. A dog trained to kill is not safe for police work . . . you can’t have them maiming suspects, after all.

The idea that the “other dog” is inflicting destruction instead of its owner is almost laughable. The owner trained said dog to kill and entered it into a fight, did it not? The owner is the human being with dominion over his creature, is he not? It’s akin to “I didn’t kill–the bullet that shot out when I pulled the trigger did.”

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Dogs kill things naturally. That’s what they do to eat. Dogs bark at and attack other dogs in the wild. Taking two wild dogs and putting them in a pen to kill each other is something that happens everyday in the wild. Whether they’ve been trained to do so more effectively than they are in the wild would be a circumstance, though not a different act.

 

[Newbie2]

Some may argue it, but it would be irrelevant. It was never considered to be anything less than an enjoyable recreation for centuries.

So one of the criteria for deciding if something is moral or not is how long it has been done? Same apply to say, slavery

The hunt (e.g., of foxes, though it was also common with other animals) basically included men riding around on horses with a pack of hunting dogs, chasing down other animals, and sicking the dogs on them. They didn’t shoot the animals, just got the hunting dogs to kill them.

The fox has a chance to excape, no?

Okay, I can see that if someone steals another dog to do this that it would obviously be a sin. Otherwise, I don’t think it is much different from how attack dogs have been training in the past and are probably still trained today, either by the police or those using them for hunting.

Police dogs are not trained in this manner.

So the moral objection to dog fighting is cruelty.

Yes

Yes, they are acts of destruction, but it is ordered toward something, that is, the recreation of man. Killing an animal to eat it is an act of destruction, but it is ordered toward something, the nutrition of man. An important circumstance that we haven’t really addressed as much is that men aren’t inflicting destruction on the dog. The other dog is. This seems more relevant than whether the dog can get away or not.

In the past, perhaps in Rome and other venues slaves fought each other to the death. The men who set this up didn’t lay a finger on either one. They were innocent of any wrongdoing?

Sounds interesting. Have you come up with a simple definition of animal welfare?

No, but the American Veterinary Medical Association has pretty good guidelines.

Dogs kill things naturally. That’s what they do to eat. Dogs bark at and attack other dogs in the wild. Taking two wild dogs and putting them in a pen to kill each other is something that happens everyday in the wild. Whether they’ve been trained to do so more effectively than they are in the wild would be a circumstance, though not a different act.

It is apparent that you don’t have much information on dog behavior. Without going into a discourse on canine behavior, let’s just say that this is simply not the case. But for discussion, let’s say that it was. So let’s look at the human equivalent of your argument:

People kill other people every day. So it is morally acceptable to put on a “Thunderdome” for the masses. Gladatorial combat to the death is morally acceptable.

Right?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

People kill other people every day. So it is morally acceptable to put on a “Thunderdome” for the masses. Gladatorial combat to the death is morally acceptable.

Right?

No, because animals don’t have a right to life; humans do. Animals have no rights at all.

 

[Newbie2]

No, because animals don’t have a right to life; humans do. Animals have no rights at all.

You’re missing my point.

What I’m getting at is that one does not have to directly inflict cruelty on another in order to be cruel to them. For example, Hitler didn’t kill his victims directly, he had his cronies take care of it. Yet nobody would question that he was guilty of acts of unspeakable cruelty.

You seemed to have made the point that since humans were not directly inflicting pain on dogs that were dog fighting, they could therefor not be accused of cruelty. I maintain that if we agree that inflicting intentional and unnecessary pain on an animal is cruel, that humans involved in dog fighting are guilty of cruelty.

You then counter with the notion that animals have no rights at all. However, we have a responsibility to them to not inflict purposeful and unnecessary pain and discomfort regardless of the outcome. e.g. we can eat animals but must slaughter them in a “humane” manner, i.e. with as little inflicted pain and suffering as possible.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

You’re missing my point.

What I’m getting at is that one does not have to directly inflict cruelty on another in order to be cruel to them. For example, Hitler didn’t kill his victims directly, he had his cronies take care of it. Yet nobody would question that he was guilty of acts of unspeakable cruelty.

He commanded it to be done. Watching two dogs kill each other doesn’t require anyone to tell them to do it. Regarding whether it is cruel, please see the above about fox hunting and the nature of sins against animals. They are sins against the Creator rather than the animal itself.

You seemed to have made the point that since humans were not directly inflicting pain on dogs that were dog fighting, they could therefor not be accused of cruelty. I maintain that if we agree that inflicting intentional and unnecessary pain on an animal is cruel, that humans involved in dog fighting are guilty of cruelty.

This has to do with whether it is actually cruel, which is debateable, and which is not what you contested in your actual post.

You then counter with the notion that animals have no rights at all. However, we have a responsibility to them to not inflict purposeful and unnecessary pain and discomfort regardless of the outcome.

Human recreation is a legitimate cause to kill animals, even in painful ways.

we can eat animals but must slaughter them in a “humane” manner, i.e. with as little inflicted pain and suffering as possible.

That isn’t actually true. If for some reason killing them in a different way would be more beneficial to man (e.g., lab testing, foie gras). Please refer above to fox hunting. Please refer above to the comments about the definition of the word humane. You don’t own humaneness to animals. You owe it to humans.

 

[Newbie2]

He commanded it to be done. Watching two dogs kill each other doesn’t require anyone to tell them to do it. Regarding whether it is cruel, please see the above about fox hunting and the nature of sins against animals. They are sins against the Creator rather than the animal itself.

This is some of the most convoluted logic I’ve ever come across in the CAF, I must say. Hitler was responsible for the deaths, no? And somehow you excuse the dog handler who is responsible for the dog’s needless death. (CCC 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly) The only way you can reasonably exclude dog fighting from what the CCC says is to maintain that dog fighting is a form of entertainment for humans that is needed. I doubt very much that many share this POV.

This has to do with whether it is actually cruel, which is debateable, and which is not what you contested in your actual post.

Did you actually read what I wrote? If I wasn;t clear, let me say it again. Dog fighting is crel and unnecessary, therefor prohibited as per the CCC.

Human recreation is a legitimate cause to kill animals, even in painful ways.

Your opinion. The CCC clearly disagrees, as a general rule.

That isn’t actually true. If for some reason killing them in a different way would be more beneficial to man (e.g., lab testing, foie gras). Please refer above to fox hunting. Please refer above to the comments about the definition of the word humane. You don’t own humaneness to animals. You owe it to humans.

Even in secular society we recognize limits on lab testing in animals.

OK, now you’re being silly. Everybody knows the connotation of the word “humane” when referring to the treatment of animals.

Look, there are points of legitimate debate in the area of animal welfare. I am in full agreement that animals do not posess “rights” in the sense of human “rights” and as the “animal rights activists” claim. Some of them go as far as to give equal status to animals and humans, which is clearly not consistant with Catholic theology.

However, just as clear is that we do not have carte blanche (sp?) authority to do as we please with animals, inflicting unnecessary (per CCC) pain on them for our pleasure. Such is neither consistant with the general notion of our stewardship toward animals (animal welfare) as put forth in an admittedly limited way in Catholic theology.

The correct POV on the morality of the use of animals lies, methinks, somewhere between your view and that of the animal “rights” activists.

And that’s pretty much all I have to say about the subject at present.

 

[Big_Dummy]

So shooting stray cats for sport is OK?

only if they are in your yard leaving presents.

 

[Sophiethenerd]

Personally, I think the intent matters. If your killing and animal out of evil and hate, then it would be a sin. If you’re hunting for food, then no. We were given animals to use. If your intentions aren’t evil, it probably won’t count as a sin here.
Just my thoughts…
Personally, I feel convicted not to kill anything. Even that giant spider that was in my bathroom.