Dumb I know BUT is this a sin

[spirocatania]

i have come across a problem.

i was in my car and i saw a bug or insect on the window and i wanted to know if it was inside the car or outside. i turned on the wipers and the insect was killed.

well got got my answer so the insect was outside however would such a thing be a sin. grave sin.

this also brings up things from childhood such as jumping on hundreds of ants on the floor but i know i was a child back then.

 

[sabriner]

lol becoming scrupulous i see?

well, no. If you felt that the bug was impeding your driving then it’s ok! I wonder, if you press your thumb against a surface are you squashing miniscule and practically invisible bugs? Well, to avoid touching anything is impossible, I doubt that would be a sin. But to kill a bug (or any animal) out of mere malice for it, or with an angry spirit, or for the sake of killing or to satisfy some feeling of hate, without good reason to the service of man or God, then that is disrespect of God’s creation. Killing a bug is venial sin AT THE MOST, and it probably isn’t the killing of a bug that is the sin but the intent. Fault/imperfection at the LEAST.

that’s my two cents. hope it helped.

 

[LilyM]

Killing a bug (or any other animal) is by no means a sin, unless, for example, you knew for a fact that it was a protected species and so the killing was illegal. Or you were particularly cruel in your method of killing (say you pulled the wings off the bug slowly first or something).

 

[Newbie2]

Killing a bug (or any other animal) is by no means a sin, unless, for example, you knew for a fact that it was a protected species and so the killing was illegal. Or you were particularly cruel in your method of killing (say you pulled the wings off the bug slowly first or something).

So shooting stray cats for sport is OK?

 

[LilyM]

So shooting stray cats for sport is OK?

They’re a real problem actually, a significant threat to native wildlife - you’d be doing the environment a huge favour by getting rid of them.

Like I said, as long as it’s a quick clean kill with no cruelty, why not?

 

[puzzleannie]

i have come across a problem.

i was in my car and i saw a bug or insect on the window and i wanted to know if it was inside the car or outside. i turned on the wipers and the insect was killed.

well got got my answer so the insect was outside however would such a thing be a sin. grave sin.

.

have you heard or read something that leads you to believe killing insects incidental to daily tasks of life is a sin?

 

[Garyjohn2]

They’re a real problem actually, a significant threat to native wildlife - you’d be doing the environment a huge favour by getting rid of them.

Like I said, as long as it’s a quick clean kill with no cruelty, why not?

Killing stray cats is illegal in most areas. Not only that, but it could actually hurt native wildlife by allowing bird and rodent poplulations to explode. It depends on the area.

Don’t kill stray cats unless you are a ecological expert or animal control professional. I’d say its a sin to kill them willy-nilly.

 

[OraLabora]

Or you were particularly cruel in your method of killing (say you pulled the wings off the bug slowly first or something).

That’s morally acceptable for deer flies, horse flies and mosquitoes

 

[LilyM]

Killing stray cats is illegal in most areas. Not only that, but it could actually hurt native wildlife by allowing bird and rodent poplulations to explode. It depends on the area.

Don’t kill stray cats unless you are a ecological expert or animal control professional. I’d say its a sin to kill them willy-nilly.

Hmmm. I’m no expert, so I’ll certainly take on board what you’re saying.

Mind you, I’m Australian, the situation here might be a little different. Fewer vermin and birds (outside the major cities, of course) due to being much drier and much more sparsely populated and cultivated. I HAVE seen an awful lot of media reports about the problems cats do cause among our native wildlife, though.

Of course I’ve never actually shot a stray cat, or anything else except a pigeon once. And now I’ll make sure to check the legality and seek professional advice before shooting (pun intended) my mouth off about the topic again.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

It’s not a sin to kill animals for entertainment. This has always been very common (fox hunting, bull fighting, etc.) If it is not done in a way that tortures the animals without any reason other than sheer malice, it is sinful. It is not sinful because it is an offense against the animal, though, but because it is an offense against a creature that God created. The animal itself has no rights in any respect. It is even permissible to kill animals in a way that could cause them a lot of pain, if it is beneficial for man, since animals were created for man’s use. We can do experiments on them that may cause them a lot of pain. We can force feed a duck so much till its stomach explodes, since this makes the liver taste a lot better. These things are all fine. Animals are for the use of man. Certainly if you accidentally kill an animal, there is no sin. Animals kill and eat each other. That’s how ecosystems work. There’s nothing wrong with it, even if it is a result of the Fall.

 

[VetA]

i have come across a problem.

i was in my car and i saw a bug or insect on the window and i wanted to know if it was inside the car or outside. i turned on the wipers and the insect was killed.

well got got my answer so the insect was outside however would such a thing be a sin. grave sin.

this also brings up things from childhood such as jumping on hundreds of ants on the floor but i know i was a child back then.

scrupulous much?

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not a sin to kill animals for entertainment. This has always been very common (fox hunting, bull fighting, etc.) If it is not done in a way that tortures the animals without any reason other than sheer malice, it is sinful. It is not sinful because it is an offense against the animal, though, but because it is an offense against a creature that God created. The animal itself has no rights in any respect. It is even permissible to kill animals in a way that could cause them a lot of pain, if it is beneficial for man, since animals were created for man’s use. We can do experiments on them that may cause them a lot of pain. We can force feed a duck so much till its stomach explodes, since this makes the liver taste a lot better. These things are all fine. Animals are for the use of man. Certainly if you accidentally kill an animal, there is no sin. Animals kill and eat each other. That’s how ecosystems work. There’s nothing wrong with it, even if it is a result of the Fall.

Nailing a duck’s feet to a board and force feeding them is good stewardship and is “fine”.

Wow.

" It is even permissible to kill animals in a way that could cause them a lot of pain, if it is beneficial for man, since animals were created for man’s use"

Sorry, but you’re wrong. This is inhumane. We don’t have unlimited authority without some degree of compassion. That’s not what stewardship towards animals is all about.

While we can and should use animals for our benefit, we need be mindful that they are God’s creatures as well.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Sorry, but you’re wrong. This is inhumane.

You’re right. It’s inhumane. That’s why it’s being done to animals and not humans. (I.e., look up the word humane.)

We don’t have unlimited authority without some degree of compassion. That’s not what stewardship towards animals is all about.

It is not a lack of compassion to use the things of the world for our benefit, which is why God created them–everything from dust to apes, all for the benefit of man.

While we can and should use animals for our benefit, we need be mindful that they are God’s creatures as well.

I’m not saying otherwise. They are creatures. They are something that is utilitarian for man. They have no higher purpose than to serve man. Whatever man finds them useful for is their best possible end.

 

[Newbie2]

You’re right. It’s inhumane. That’s why it’s being done to animals and not humans. (I.e., look up the word humane.)

OK, cruel.

It is not a lack of compassion to use the things of the world for our benefit, which is why God created them–everything from dust to apes, all for the benefit of man.

I agree, but I take issue with the POV that says we can do anything to any animal at any time, which seems to be what you’re saying, unless I misunderstand.

I’m not saying otherwise. They are creatures. They are something that is utilitarian for man. They have no higher purpose than to serve man. Whatever man finds them useful for is their best possible end.

I beg to differ, depending on what you mean by “whatever” and “useful”. Some people could find it “useful” to set dogs on fire and watch them run around for entertainment, no?

All I’m saying is that there is a line between good stewardship and cruelty. Sometimes that line is very thick and sometimes very thin. There are areas of dispute and some may be a matter of personal preference…nonetheless we should be careful not to be too broad with the meaning of “whatever”.

See also CCC:

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.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

“Needlessly.” If we take the CCC as the only standard, flaming dogs would not be out of the question. Anything that is a true benefit to society (e.g., fine cuisine) is clearly permissible. Hunting for sport has always been fine. Certain kinds of dog and cock fighting? Probably fine. Torturing animals? That is where is simply becomes sadistic, as there is no real benefit out of this, and someone who does this clearly has a mental problem he needs to deal with.

 

[Newbie2]

“Needlessly.” If we take the CCC as the only standard, flaming dogs would not be out of the question.

Are you saying that the CCC’s use of the term “needlessly” would permit flaming dogs for sport? Not sure what your wording intends, IC.

Anything that is a true benefit to society (e.g., fine cuisine) is clearly permissible. Hunting for sport has always been fine. Certain kinds of dog and cock fighting? Probably fine. Torturing animals? That is where is simply becomes sadistic, as there is no real benefit out of this, and someone who does this clearly has a mental problem he needs to deal with.

See, that’s where the discernment comes in. Dog and cock fighting=probably fine?? Are you suggesting that there’s a NEED to subject such dogs and chickens to injury??? Where is the benefit to society in this, entertainment?

Not to mention that “true benefit to society” is a very open term. Do we NEED to eat artificially fatted duck liver? I beg to differ that such is “clearly permissible”. That’s where we need to work out, as stewards, what is and what is not morally permissible.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Are you saying that the CCC’s use of the term “needlessly” would permit flaming dogs for sport? Not sure what your wording intends, IC. See, that’s where the discernment comes in. Dog and cock fighting=probably fine?? Are you suggesting that there’s a NEED to subject such dogs and chickens to injury??? Where is the benefit to society in this, entertainment?

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The document can’t possibly mean needless in the sense that only for absolute necessity because, in that case, we couldn’t eat animals because we can get all the nutrients we need from a vegetarian diet (certainly with modern supplements this is possible). Man has a need for recreation and relaxation. If hunting or dog fighting or cock fighting provide him that, then it is fulfilling a need. It is not needless. What I’m saying is that if you take the CCC simply at face value, it doesn’t condemn flaming dogs. I don’t propose we take a sentence out of the CCC as the final arbiter of truth, though…

Not to mention that “true benefit to society” is a very open term. Do we NEED to eat artificially fatted duck liver? I beg to differ that such is “clearly permissible”. That’s where we need to work out, as stewards, what is and what is not morally permissible.

If this be the case, I propose that we cannot eat animals at all because it is not necessary. We can live on fruits, vegetables, grain, etc. Animals don’t have any particular dignity or rights. They are a creation of God. One may not abuse them because it is a sin against God, who created them for a purpose. When they are used according to the purpose for which God created them (serving man), they cannot be misused.

Being a good steward means using something for its purpose.

It’s not wrong to use your money for recreation. That is being a good steward of it.
It’s not being a good steward to throw your money away or burn it.

It’s not wrong to use animals for recreation. That is being a good steward of them.
It’s not being a good steward to waste them, burn them, torture them, etc.

Animals are property and are to be treated like any other property of man. Note again the passage of the CCC. It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It isn’t contrary to animal dignity because they don’t have any dignity. They are property.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The document can’t possibly mean needless in the sense that only for absolute necessity because, in that case, we couldn’t eat animals because we can get all the nutrients we need from a vegetarian diet (certainly with modern supplements this is possible). Man has a need for recreation and relaxation. If hunting or dog fighting or cock fighting provide him that, then it is fulfilling a need. It is not needless. What I’m saying is that if you take the CCC simply at face value, it doesn’t condemn flaming dogs. I don’t propose we take a sentence out of the CCC as the final arbiter of truth, though…

I take issue with the necessity of arranging animal fights. Certainly we need rest and relaxation, but surely you cannot make the case that animal fights are a necessity. Entertainment can be had in various other ways, no?

If this be the case, I propose that we cannot eat animals at all because it is not necessary. We can live on fruits, vegetables, grain, etc. Animals don’t have any particular dignity or rights. They are a creation of God. **One may not abuse them because it is a sin against God, who created them for a purpose. When they are used according to the purpose for which God created them (serving man), they cannot be misused. **

Exactly. However, it’s not clear in every case what constitutes abuse and what constitutes God-intended purpose. I would posit, for example, that dogs were not created for us to arrange them to tear each other apart for our entertianment.

Being a good steward means using something for its purpose.

It’s not wrong to use your money for recreation. That is being a good steward of it.
It’s not being a good steward to throw your money away or burn it.

It’s not wrong to use animals for recreation. That is being a good steward of them.
It’s not being a good steward to waste them, burn them, torture them, etc.

Again, Exactly! What is permissible for their use is up for debate in many cases.

Animals are property and are to be treated like any other property of man. Note again the passage of the CCC. It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It isn’t contrary to animal dignity because they don’t have any dignity. They are property.

See, there again is a very broad statement that is open to a variety of interpretation. When I’m tired of a piece of furniture, for example, I can morally throw it out in the garbage. When I get tired of watching my guppies or playing with my elderly golden retriever I cannot morally just flush them or turn him or her out into the street, morally speaking.

I guess my point is that we have to carefully define our positions on animal welfare as Catholic Christians and that there are some grey areas where there may never be a moral consensus.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I take issue with the necessity of arranging animal fights. Certainly we need rest and relaxation, but surely you cannot make the case that animal fights are a necessity. Entertainment can be had in various other ways, no?

Yes, and nutrition can be had in various other ways, such as vegetables. That doesn’t mean you can’t eat animals.

Exactly. However, it’s not clear in every case what constitutes abuse and what constitutes God-intended purpose. I would posit, for example, that dogs were not created for us to arrange them to tear each other apart for our entertianment.

I’m not saying it’s the most sophisticated thing to do. It just isn’t sinful. It can be a legitimate recreation. I don’t see how sicking a dog on a fox in the woods is any different from sicking a dog on a dog in a basement. The former is certainly permissible, though it was forbidden to clerics due to their state in life. It was always permitted to laymen. No one throughout the history of the Church has contested that it is a sin (perhaps only today with animals’ “rights”). How is it any different from dog fighting, ultimately?

Again, Exactly! What is permissible for their use is up for debate in many cases.

Not according to what is sinful. If you don’t want to eat pate or cats (like they do in China) or go fox hunting, that’s fine. It’s just not sinful, and it would be wrong to impose one’s personal feelings (which is all this is a discussion about, feelings about animals rather than looking at their actual purpose) on someone else. I know people who farm. They have a closeness to their animals that would probably make them uncomfortable at a cock fight. That’s fine. I’m not going to force them to do it. I haven’t ever done it myself, and I don’t plan to. I just don’t see why it would be sinful.

See, there again is a very broad statement that is open to a variety of interpretation. When I’m tired of a piece of furniture, for example, I can morally throw it out in the garbage. When I get tired of watching my guppies or playing with my elderly golden retriever I cannot morally just flush them or turn him or her out into the street, morally speaking.

Sure you can. You may choose to shoot your dog instead because of some fondness for the animal, but you could very well let it loose to the wild. (That’s how animals naturally live… in the wild.) You can kill an animal as long as you have a reason to do so.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, and nutrition can be had in various other ways, such as vegetables. That doesn’t mean you can’t eat animals.

Agreed, and I don’t mean to imply that one cannot do so.

I’m not saying it’s the most sophisticated thing to do. It just isn’t sinful. It can be a legitimate recreation. I don’t see how sicking a dog on a fox in the woods is any different from sicking a dog on a dog in a basement. The former is certainly permissible, though it was forbidden to clerics due to their state in life. It was always permitted to laymen. No one throughout the history of the Church has contested that it is a sin (perhaps only today with animals’ “rights”). How is it any different from dog fighting, ultimately?

You don’t see a difference between fox hunting and dog fighting? Seriously?

If not, let me point out that the fox does have a chance of excaping injury. Dogs in a fighting ring do not. BTW, I’m not saying fox hunting is either morally acceptable or not…I don’t know enough about the logistics and have never participate in either one.

Not according to what is sinful. If you don’t want to eat pate or cats (like they do in China) or go fox hunting, that’s fine. It’s just not sinful, and it would be wrong to impose one’s personal feelings (which is all this is a discussion about, feelings about animals rather than looking at their actual purpose) on someone else. I know people who farm. They have a closeness to their animals that would probably make them uncomfortable at a cock fight. That’s fine. I’m not going to force them to do it. I haven’t ever done it myself, and I don’t plan to. I just don’t see why it would be sinful.

You don’t think it’s cruel or abusive, on some level, to nail down the feet of a duck and force feed one to the point of disease?

Sure you can. You may choose to shoot your dog instead because of some fondness for the animal, but you could very well let it loose to the wild. (That’s how animals naturally live… in the wild.) You can kill an animal as long as you have a reason to do so.

Domesticated dogs, for the most part, are not equipped to survive in the wild. Unnecessarily subjecting one’s dog to the psycological stress of living in the wild, as well as potentially setting them up to starve to death or be eaten by coyotes is cruelty.

Here again we come across the concept of “necessity” and “non-necessity” as used in the CCC.

Once again, “reason to do so” is extremely broad and subject to a variety of interpretations. I may have reason to set the neighbor’s dog on fire…maybe it kept me up all night with its barking…but to do so would be cruel and sinful.

Unless I’m misunderstanding, you seem to think that our dominion over animals gives us the ability to do anything we want with them at any time for any reason. That simply isn’t supported in Catholic Theology.