The physiology of certain animals seems to make them able to endure greater blows than man. A dog can hit his head on something and not be moved whereas a man would be. A horse can take a whip and not be moved whereas a man would be.
This may be true for a turtle and being smacked on his shell, and the like, but for the most part, I see no scientific basis for this. When you see a dog “not be[ing] moved” after being hit on the head, you see a dog that has been hit before. He has essentially given up trying to defend himself. Try hitting an unfamiliar (or even a familiar) German Shepherd and see what happens. And horses are trained to be desensitized to the whip; that is, not to react. It doesn’t mean it hurts any less.
Yes, man also uses violence to control. Almost no one suggests we should not use violence to control man. I just mention animals because we know from observing them in nature that they also use violence. It is natural to an animal to use violence. So it would not be unnatural for a man to use violence, at least certain forms and to some degree, on an animal.
Perhaps you should further define “control” and the intent behind such “control”. An animal does not use violence to harm another animal with the sole intent of harming them. They kill for food and survival because they have to. *There is no other recourse for them. * A cat cannot eat vegetables; he must kill the mouse. Two toms fighting over territory in an alley cannot talk it out calmly at the peace table. They bite and scratch. They are incapable of abstract, conceptual thought and are therefore incapable of sin. Humans, OTOH, do not need to eat animals, wear animal products or use animals for entertainment. Much scientific experimentation may now be done with tissue samples, or cadavers, making the use of living animals unnecessary. The situations are clearly not the same.
I agree needless here must mean something. It seems to me that without elaboration the statement is not all that helpful. There are a few places in the catechism that are also in need of elaboration to be helpful. I’m not criticizing the catechism. It is just that moral matters are complex.
Yes and no. Yes, this particular segment in the CCC is in dire need of elaboration, but, no, the meaning of “needless” seems fairly straightforward to me.
I don’t know what statements the church has made. But it seems a reasonable deduction considering the soul of man is immortal and the soul of animals has traditionally not been considered immortal.
The key word here is “tradition”. The nature of the animal soul is regarded as “material” as described by Aquinas in
Summa Theologica. So, it has been Church tradition to say that animal souls are not immortal since the 13th century. She has not been interested to date in revamping her “tradition” based on the current science. Note that (1) the nature of the animal soul is not explicitly spelled out in the CCC and (2)
Summa Theologica is not doctrine.
I don’t see why animals are not objects for man to use. Using people as objects is wrong. Using animals as objects is not wrong. It seems to me most people when they think of animal abuse think of larger mammals that they are fond of. But if we are going to be consistent all animals have souls as do all plants. Am I abusing the grass when I walk on it? Am I abusing a tree when a cut a limb because I want more sunlight in my house? Am I abusing an ant when I step on him when walking?
Animals are **not **objects. They are not rocks. **Unlike plants, they are sentient beings. ** The think, feel, communicate and experience pain. They reproduce, have families and form societal groups. More importantly, animals have souls created by God. They have arisen from His love. They are part spirit (in the eyes of the Church, while here on earth only) and “praise Him and give Him glory”. Are you abusing an ant when you walk on him? No, unless you did it with the express intent of killing him needlessly. You see, Catholic vegans are consistent.
