Killing Animals for "Sport"

[Brendan]

\

Game-shooting and ‘recreational’ hunting are activities no Christian or humane person should engage in;80 although hunting for food – where other sources of protein are genuinely not available – would mitigate the culpability as it would come under the category of ‘self-defence’; one life taken so that another may survive."

I did find this to be pretty interesting.

Considering that the local Cappuchin Soup Kitchen regularly advertises for spare deer during hunting season.

They even have campaign posters in the parishes advocating that hunters take two deer. " One for the Freezer and One for the Friar"

The Soup kitchens can certainly obtain other sources of protein, so she seems to think that these Friars are advocating something that “no Christian or humane person should engage in”

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned Fr. Herbert Jones (OFM.Cap) who wrote the primere Moral theology textbook for seminaries. Over the course of most of the 20th Century, it went through 8 editions and was translated as textbooks into 8 different languages.

Fr. Jones ( who actually has an S.T.D in Moral Theology) noted that for clergy “Ordinary hunting is not prohibited, unless it is done with such frequency as to cause scandal”

Jones - Moral Theology - 8th Edition c.1968 #406-VII “Clerical Decorum”

This seems to run counter to Dr. Jones. So it would seem that she is mistaken on hunting as an activity Christians can engage in.

And in both the examples I mentioned, it was Franciscans, specifically Cappuchins, who have either advocated hunting, or see no issues in clergy hunting.

Out of all of us, would they not have the best understanding of the charism of St. Francis in regard to this matter?

 

[Brendan]

OK Here is a bit more from Fr. Herbert Jones, OFM.Cap

From the section on the 5th Commandment.

#221

II Cruelty to Animals.

1. Man has no duties towards animals for they have no independant personality. Being ordained to the service of man, they may be used for any ethical purpose.

Such use is lawful even when it implies suffering and death of the animal. Vivisection, therefore, is lawful provided it serves a legitimate purpose, such as the advancement of science, provided the animal is not made to suffer any more that is necessary.

2.It is sinful to cause an animal to suffer unnecessary pain. This sinfulness does not result lie in the violation of a right that an animal might posess, but only in the action’s opposition to reason which forbids the needless causing of suffering and pain. In itself, this would only be a venial sin.

So there we have the author of the most common text on Moral theology in the seminaries worldwide for most of the 20th Century. And a Franciscian to boot.

It seems Dr. Jones really didn’t do her homework on the matter.

 

[severus68]

OK Here is a bit more from Fr. Herbert Jones, OFM.Cap

From the section on the 5th Commandment.

So there we have the author of the most common text on Moral theology in the seminaries worldwide for most of the 20th Century. And a Franciscian to boot.

It seems Dr. Jones really didn’t do her homework on the matter.

May I ask when Fr H. Jones wrote it since yo referto it as te most modern book.

 

[4elise]

OK Here is a bit more from Fr. Herbert Jones, OFM.Cap
From the section on the 5th Commandment.

So there we have the author of the most common text on Moral theology in the seminaries worldwide for most of the 20th Century. And a Franciscian to boot.

It seems Dr. Jones really didn’t do her homework on the matter.

Brendan - your contribution to this from Fr. Jones is very interesting. I would like to draw a comparison between what Fr. Jones has written and what is part of the CCC - and get your take on where the difference is:

From Fr. Jones:

#221

II Cruelty to Animals.

1. Man has no duties towards animals for they have no independant personality. Being ordained to the service of man, they may be used for any ethical purpose.

Such use is lawful even when it implies suffering and death of the animal. Vivisection, therefore, is lawful provided it serves a legitimate purpose, such as the advancement of science, provided the animal is not made to suffer any more that is necessary.

2.It is sinful to cause an animal to suffer unnecessary pain. This sinfulness does not result lie in the violation of a right that an animal might posess, but only in the action’s opposition to reason which forbids the needless causing of suffering and pain. In itself, this would only be a venial sin.

From the CCC

Respect for the integrity of creation *(interestingly this section falls in the CCC under the 7th Commandment not the 5th) *

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.194 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.195

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.196 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.197 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

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.

Much of the text is similar - acknowledging the legitimate use of animals provide the suffering is limited - but the CCC goes farther than just saying that it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly - it says or die needlessly.

For myself (certainly no theologian) - I want to avoid the needless suffering or death of animals as proscribed in the CCC and find that this supports a decision to avoid meat, fish, dairy, eggs, leather, fur, hunting…etc. because I have easy (and less expensive) sources of protein readily available. *(I believe that my choice is also supported by other sections of the CCC related to creation and resources but that is a topic for another thread) *

Although I’m personally unfamiliar with her work, given the quote you’ve used - I think it may be just semantics that cause you to find Dr Jones comments so objectionable? - because they certainly seem to be supported by the CCC…

Game-shooting and ‘recreational’ hunting are activities no Christian or humane person should engage in;80 although hunting for food – where other sources of protein are genuinely not available – would mitigate the culpability as it would come under the category of ‘self-defence’; one life taken so that another may survive."

This is supported again by the same section regarding needless suffering and death of animals, she apparently clarifies in the above quote that given no other source of protein - it is legitimate because it is to save a life.

Blessings,

 

[Brendan]

Much of the text is similar - acknowledging the legitimate use of animals provide the suffering is limited - but the CCC goes farther than just saying that it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly - it says or die needlessly.

I agree the texts are very similar, I would even say quite compatable ( which is expected, as the theologians who wrote the catechism probably had Jones as their textbook in the seminary )

For myself (certainly no theologian) - I want to avoid the needless suffering or death of animals as proscribed in the CCC and find that this supports a decision to avoid meat, fish, dairy, eggs, leather, fur, hunting…etc. because I have easy (and less expensive) sources of protein readily available. *(I believe that my choice is also supported by other sections of the CCC related to creation and resources but that is a topic for another thread) *

I fully understand that and appreciate it. It

Although I’m personally unfamiliar with her work, given the quote you’ve used - I think it may be just semantics that cause you to find Dr Jones comments so objectionable? - because they certainly seem to be supported by the CCC…

No, because Dr. Jones is saying is that hunting itself is objectionable, regardless of it is simply for sport, or for food. A example of that is she goes far further than the Church in stating that for it to be moral, there should be no other sources of protein available. That is not found in any Councilar documents, any writings by Church theologians, or in the CCC.

There is no Church teaching that limits hunting to only circumstances where ‘self defense’ could be invoked. Fr. Jones instead allows the death of an animal for ‘legitimate reasons’ and even allows hunting as a licit clerical pastime.

That is why Dr. Jones opinion is extreme and outside of accepted Church teaching.

 

[Brendan]

May I ask when Fr H. Jones wrote it since yo referto it as te most modern book.

My edition is copyright 1968

His first edition was in 1930 and it went through 15 Editions in his native German, the last being 1972, and 8 editions in English, the last being my edition.

And I never said it was the ‘most modern’ book, I said it was the most COMMON textbook worldwide for most of the 20th Century.

And yes, it’s even used now. In fact, that is where I got my copy. It was one of the texts for my first Moral Theology class in the diaconate program. That class was in 2005 at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit ( the seminary for the Archdiocese of Detroit and the Province of Michigan).

Part of the value of the text is that it is written almost as a mini-encyclopedia. There is an index and you can look up almost any topic and get a section on if it is sinful and under what circumstances.

Priests used to keep copies in their confessional so if someone confessed something that they were unfamiliar with, they could just look it up quickly and find out if it was sinful, and if so, was it venial or grave. Of course that pretty much ended with face to face confessions

 

[Godscre]

She quotes many resources - and though I’m not a theologian or Church authority, she dispells the lies with the truth and gives explanations.
She is extremely truthful (ie. being fair to St. Thomas Aquinas who is often mis-understood). We are to seek Truth ourselves. I hope people (esp. those in authority in the Church) reads it and gives their critique of her book.

 

[4elise]

No, because Dr. Jones is saying is that hunting itself is objectionable, regardless of it is simply for sport, or for food. A example of that is she goes far further than the Church in stating that for it to be moral, there should be no other sources of protein available. That is not found in any Councilar documents, any writings by Church theologians, or in the CCC.

There is no Church teaching that limits hunting to only circumstances where ‘self defense’ could be invoked. Fr. Jones instead allows the death of an animal for ‘legitimate reasons’ and even allows hunting as a licit clerical pastime.

That is why Dr. Jones opinion is extreme and outside of accepted Church teaching.

Game-shooting and ‘recreational’ hunting are activities no Christian or humane person should engage in;80 although hunting for food – where other sources of protein are genuinely not available – would mitigate the culpability as it would come under the category of ‘self-defence’; one life taken so that another may survive."

I do not find in this any direction from Dr. Jones that is not supported by the CCC: - how do you find them distinct?

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.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This does not change the fact that she obviously mines the Catechism to try to find things that it does not say.

That is metaphoric. The sin was a sin of pride in wanting to be like God.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I haven’t read her book. I would like to know please whether she has lied in the book. Can we get any insights from readig her book? Does she say she has a doctorate in Catholic or Co of E theology? Does she misrepresent her credentials?

i thought I knew most theology courses that the Church teaches. I do admit, I have never heard of Animal Theology. or the Theology of animals, or whatever. sounds almost like vegan theology.

 

[Brendan]

I do not find in this any direction from Dr. Jones that is not supported by the CCC: - how do you find them distinct?

Where does the Catechism place the qualifier, “where other sources of protein are not available”

That is clearly above the level of need that the Church teaches. If the need is for venison then one may kill a deer, regardless of how many peanuts has in the cupboard, or even chicken in the 'fridge.

The only requirement that the Church places is that the deer be killed with the minimum amount of suffering.

And here is Trent on the subject of the 5th Commandment, specifically on the killing of animals. We certainly cannot presume that the Cathechism (or any valid Catholic theology) teaches in opposition to Trent.

Exceptions: The Killing Of Animals
With regard to the prohibitory part, it should first be taught what kinds of killing are not forbidden by this Commandment. It is not prohibited to kill animals; for as God permits man to eat them, it is also lawful to kill them. When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, “Thou shalt not kill,” we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society.

 

[Brendan]

i thought I knew most theology courses that the Church teaches. I do admit, I have never heard of Animal Theology. or the Theology of animals, or whatever. sounds almost like vegan theology.

My thoughts exactly. That was the ‘tip off’ on investigating her credientials. “Animal Theology” was not one of the topics covered in my theology training either

That, and the degree being a “Ph.D”, not an S.T.D

 

[Brendan]

She quotes many resources - and though I’m not a theologian or Church authority, she dispells the lies with the truth and gives explanations.
She is extremely truthful (ie. being fair to St. Thomas Aquinas who is often mis-understood). We are to seek Truth ourselves. I hope people (esp. those in authority in the Church) reads it and gives their critique of her book.

I would really like to hear exactly how she considers the Angelic Doctor as being ‘misunderstood’ and why so many others who have studied Thomistic theology have come do different conclusions.

You are correct in that we are to seek the Truth. That is why we belong to a Church that has a Magisterium. It is our obligation to learn from the Magisterium, not to try and instruct it.

 

[banarick]

The reason a hunter wants to hit a deer in the right spot is so that it will go down quickly and so vital organs won’t be hit and spoil the meat. You also must be careful when correctly dressing a deer on the spot so as not to hit those nasty organs that spoil the meat. Deer are quite heavy as well and tough to lug out of the woods sometimes.
If anyone here thinks we like to chase a wounded deer for lengthy periods of time you have no idea of what the sport is about. Besides, there is a good chance that the deer will run to another property that we do not have permission to be on and cannot commit trespass just to get the kill. What a waste.
So the moral is to practice good marksmanship.
Will our vegetarian friends support ammunition subsidies to help us in this regard? The humane thing to do is to donate to the local gun clubs to assist us in this act of mercy.

 

[Fawkes]

Hunting for sport where the meat is not used = bad. Hunting, even if for sport, where the meat is used = good. Period

 

[tweetymom]

Hunting for sport where the meat is not used = bad. Hunting, even if for sport, where the meat is used = good. Period

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[4elise]

Where does the Catechism place the qualifier, “where other sources of protein are not available”

That is clearly above the level of need that the Church teaches. If the need is for venison then one may kill a deer, regardless of how many peanuts has in the cupboard, or even chicken in the 'fridge.

The only requirement that the Church places is that the deer be killed with the minimum amount of suffering.

And here is Trent on the subject of the 5th Commandment, specifically on the killing of animals. We certainly cannot presume that the Cathechism (or any valid Catholic theology) teaches in opposition to Trent.

And here is Trent on the subject of the 5th Commandment, specifically on the killing of animals. We certainly cannot presume that the Cathechism (or any valid Catholic theology) teaches in opposition to Trent.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

I do understand what you are saying - but I still see that her position (in the quote provided) as being supported by the Catechism per 2418 - (and again this is under the 7th commandment / not the 5th in the catechism - so perhaps this is one of the areas there is a difference?)

 

[Godscre]

I would really like to hear exactly how she considers the Angelic Doctor as being ‘misunderstood’ and why so many others who have studied Thomistic theology have come do different conclusions.

You are correct in that we are to seek the Truth. That is why we belong to a Church that has a Magisterium. It is our obligation to learn from the Magisterium, not to try and instruct it.

Infallible teaching is infallible just as the Bible is the Word of God.
Time and study are needed as we’ve seen how Galileo was accepted by the Church after his excommunication I believe. I’m conservative and love the Church.

 

[Brendan]

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

I do understand what you are saying - but I still see that her position (in the quote provided) as being supported by the Catechism per 2418 - (and again this is under the 7th commandment / not the 5th in the catechism - so perhaps this is one of the areas there is a difference?)

Correct, and if I need venison for my venison stew, my options are vivisection or to kill the animal.

And yes, my quote was in regards to the 5th Commandment “Thou shall not Kill”. Trent was simply noting that the commandment did not apply to the killing of animals.

 

[Brendan]

Infallible teaching is infallible just as the Bible is the Word of God.

Correct. And one item of infallible teaching is that the Moral Law is unchanging. If it was permissable, even pleasing to God for Abel to kill elements of his flock, if it was permissable for mankind to kill and eat then, it is permissable now.

Time and study are needed as we’ve seen how Galileo was accepted by the Church after his excommunication I believe. I’m conservative and love the Church.

Yes, and Galileo was excommunicated for insisting that the Bible needed to be re-written, not for scientific research.

Galileo suffered from pride, which IS a sin. Cardinal Bellarmine correctly suggested to Galileo that he simply discuss his theory as just that, a theory, a thought experiment and not to publish until he had more proof. He also told Galileo to lay off making comments about the Bible and to leave that to the Church. Galileo did neither.

His own experiments worked against him. He predicted stellar paralax, but was unable to measure it ( the stars were WAY farther away than he imagined), and his model for planetary retrograd was also way off, ( Galileo used perfect circles for his planetary motion model).

If anyone was as experimentally off as Galileo was, they too would have not been able to publish in any scientific journal either

But either way, his theory simply touched on matters of Scriptural interpretation, which can be expanded.

Our topic is Moral Theology, which can never be subtracted from. Eating animals is just as moral now and it was at any point in history, and for the exact same reasons.