Killing animals

[BlindSheep]

I’ve read that the Church teaches that animals do have souls, but that their souls cease to exist when they die. I can’t help but wonder, then, why moral law allows us to kill them for frivolous reasons (they taste good, they make good shoes etc.) If this life is all they have, isn’t it wrong to take it from them without good reason?
Bear in mind, I’m not saying animals are more important than humans. If it’s a human’s life vs. an animal’s, by all means kill the animal. But when the reasons are not serious, how can it be OK to kill an animal?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I’m not sure that temporary animal souls is a dogmatic teaching, but I could be wrong. In any case, from the CCC (my bolding):

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 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.

So food and clothing would not constitute a “frivolous” reason.

Scott

 

[4_marks]

I believe that we should care for animals, but that it is quite acceptable to kill them for food, for clothing, if threatened by them, and yes, for sport, especially when their population gets out of hand.

I have two pet cats and a very spoiled house rabbit which I absolutely adore.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

ALL through the OT there is killing of animals for sacrifice, food, clothing, etc. Why do you think it was a blessing to have all those flocks and land. If your killing off animals for sport then thats waste and murder.

 

[Sir_Knight]

BlindSheep:

I’ve read that the Church teaches that animals do have souls, but that their souls cease to exist when they die …

Exactly where did you read this? Did the source have ecclesiastical approval?

 

[Didi]

I have always heard and read that only human beings have souls, because humans alone have a conscience – the intelligence and free will to choose right and wrong.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Acts 10, 9-13

9 The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. 10 He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. 13 A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.”

 

[felra]

Didi:

I have always heard and read that only human beings have souls, because humans alone have a conscience – the intelligence and free will to choose right and wrong.

From Frank Sheed’s book “Theology for Beginners” 1958, 1976, 1981 (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur):

“This mingling of spirit and matter in human actions arises from a fact which distinguishes man’s spirit from all others. Ours is the only spirit which is also a soul–that is to say, the life principle in a body. God is a spirit, but has no body; the angels are spirits, but have no body. Only in man is spirit united with a body, animates the body, makes it to be a living body. Every living body–vegetable, lower animal, human–has a life principle, a soul.” (pp. 10).

“The souls, the life principles, of plants and animals produce no vital activities which rise above matter. They are marvellous enough, they animate the body. The soul is not in space at all; it animates the body by superiority of energy. There, then, stands man. His soul, because it is a soul, animates his body, as the soul of a lower animal animates its; but because man’s soul is a spirit, it has faculties of intellect and will by which it knows and loves as the animal cannot. Animal knowledge is only a faint parody of human knowledge. And so, with all its pathos, is animal love.” (pp. 60-61).