Man and the Animals

[AnimalsAtSide]

It is interesting that the CCC added the word “only”. It does not appear in Gaudium et Spes

Since I don’t have the original text, I can’t comment on this…but the text published by the Vatican includes the word “only.”

So man would be the “cause” which “causes” the existence of animals, which is to say that man “caused” animals? How could man “cause” animals, when they (the animals) were created first? If man could “cause” animals, why doesn’t he replenish extinct species?

We have absolutely no way to tell whether or not it is in the nature of an animal to serve man. And, if I were a betting person, I would say that an animal’s nature does not come from man. I would say that the “essence” comes from God. I think the “essence” of an animal is independent of man’s power to create, teach, tame, whatever.

God is the ultimate agent (cause) but He can also use intermediate agents (causes) when it comes to essence (what a thing is). However, being (the fact that it is) is directly given by God…there is no intermediate agent (cause). So, when speaking of man as a cause I don’t mean in the same way that God is a cause…I also don’t mean as a cause of being.

Man as being a cause of the animals’ essence can be seen in the Garden (where the purposes of creation are presented). It is the first man who gives names to each of the animals or speaking in philosophical terms, it is Adam who actualizes all species (cf. Gen 2:20). Without man, the animals are nameless. A name expresses essence and identity. By giving the animals names, Adam is giving them their essence or in other words, the first man is a cause of the animals’ essence.

To say what you’re saying would mean that God created something imperfect. Can’t happen; didn’t happen.

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175

I am hesitant to call man “the king of creation”. I would think that God is the “King”.

Adam is given “royal prerogatives and a mandate to rule: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over…the earth’ (Gen 1:28; cf. 1:26).”[1] Yes God is the ultimate King, but He makes man in His image and makes man king. Man’s kingship comes from being made in the image of God…it comes from God’s Kingship.

[1] Bernard Batto, “The Divine Sovereign: The Image of God in the Priestly Creation Account,” quoted in Scott Hahn, The Kingdom of God as Liturgical Empire, 25.

Animals are smart, but—as far as we know at this time—they cannot ask the questions “What is my purpose?” and “What is my direction?”

I’m speaking analogically here. The animals look to man for direction and purpose not by a rational desire (one that asks questions) but by a natural desire without reason [intellect].

Does creation need man? Probably not. After all, creation was perfectly fine before the appearance of man on the planet. Are we as Catholics supposed to believe that “creation need man”? If so, a source?

The creation account is the building of perfection and man is created on the sixth day showing us how humanity is the best part of creation. [1]

299 The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the “image of the invisible God”, is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the “image of God” and called to a personal relationship with God.152 …] for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him.

[1] See Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises

 

[AnimalsAtSide]

This part is **not **parable, but example. If you call this passage parable, then you imply that the Father does not feed the birds. Do you want to do this?

Parable does not equal science fiction. Parables are based in reality and are used to teach a lesson like an example. Parables and examples are not in opposition with each other.

“Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”
Also, see *Luke *12:6-7: “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.”

We must look at what Christ is doing in this example…why is He employing this example? Examining the context in Matthew, we find that He uses the example of the birds to demonstrate to man not to worry/be anxious about the things of this world. So birds are a real life example that the audience is able to draw upon because we can “look at” the birds…as Aristotle mentions the senses are our first means of understanding.[1] So Christ is pointing out something more knowable to something that is harder for man to know, which is not to be anxious. Christ’s purpose is not to teach about birds but to teach about man. The same goes for the passage in Luke.

[1] Aristotle, De Anima

God does not forget the sparrows. It doesn’t say “He forgets the sparrows after they die.” He does not forget them. Period.

With this logic, it seems that one could say that the “hairs of your head” have immortal souls…so when I lose a strand of my hair, I’m sure God does not forget that strand of hair…but does Him not forgetting it mean that it is immortal? Also in that passage in Matthew, Christ speaks about the lilies and grass…do they too have immortal souls?

Forget is not synonymous with lives on, meaning immortal. Christ is saying that even the birds (that don’t live on) are not forgotten, so how can man be forgotten (when he does live on).

What you are trying to do is to convince me that man is a higher level of creation, and of higher moral value. I don’t know why, because I am not arguing that animals are equal to, or greater than, man. What I am saying is that they are on a higher plane of existence than what the Church currently thinks.

If animals have spiritual, immortal souls then how are they different than man? Why then would you say that he is greater than the animals? I’m trying to show how man’s greatness and role in creation flows from his spiritual, immortal soul.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Once more, in English.

Sorry you missed the humor. The post said man is the reason for animals so I said that some dinosaurs (especially the carnivorous ones) might have man for a meal. I may have went too far by saying that the decay of past eons are the making of oil for man’s cars today.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Sorry you missed the humor. The post said man is the reason for animals so I said that some dinosaurs (especially the carnivorous ones) might have man for a meal. I may have went too far by saying that the decay of past eons are the making of oil for man’s cars today.

That’s Ok. I didn’t understand.

 

[RaiseMeUp]

This something I always like to look into as well. Im a Veterinary Technician - I also received Humane Law Enforcement Certification from the State of NJ. I understand that we have dominion over animals, but they are also part of God’s creation. I understand that animals have material souls, and we have spiritual souls. I have heard mixed views on the possibilities of animals in Heaven. Obviously we dont have a definitive answer, but with God being limitless, its a comforting thought and possibility.

St. Francis had a special appreciation for animals and even preached to them.
Some people actually get their pets blessed! **Franciscan churches, a friar with brown robe and white cord often welcomes each animal with a special prayer. The Blessing of Pets usually goes like this:

“Blessed are you, Lord God, maker of all living creatures. You called forth fish in the sea, birds in the air and animals on the land. You inspired St. Francis to call all of them his brothers and sisters. We ask you to bless this pet. By the power of your love, enable it to live according to your plan. May we always praise you for all your beauty in creation. Blessed are you, Lord our God, in all your creatures! Amen.”**

 

[NeedsMercy]

AnimalsAtSide, you know, I was going to argue your posts point for point, but then I said “Why?” Obviously, you started this thread for some reason other than a discussion about animals, their place in creation and the nature of their souls. You don’t want anyone else’s opinion and you’re too entrenched in the philosophical to observe scientific reality.

Animals have consciousness. I believe they have immortal souls. I believe that they will be in Heaven. I believe further that plants will be in Heaven. And rocks, too. And with that, I’m out. Oh, btw, I won’t be reading your blog anymore, but I guess you already knew that.

 

[AnimalsAtSide]

AnimalsAtSide, you know, I was going to argue your posts point for point, but then I said “Why?” Obviously, you started this thread for some reason other than a discussion about animals, their place in creation and the nature of their souls. You don’t want anyone else’s opinion and you’re too entrenched in the philosophical to observe scientific reality.

Animals have consciousness. I believe they have immortal souls. I believe that they will be in Heaven. I believe further that plants will be in Heaven. And rocks, too. And with that, I’m out. Oh, btw, I won’t be reading your blog anymore, but I guess you already knew that.

As you were responding to my points, I too was responding to yours…not to prove a point but to further a discussion (which I might add was very enriching due to the depth of your thoughtfulness). I am sorry that it has become something negative for you. This was not my intention…in fact, I felt we were having a good dialogue/exchange.

I am sure in reading my blog you realize we both have a great appreciation for animals. My starting point is and continues to be that animals have a great capacity to lift our hearts and minds to God.

I have actually enjoyed our discussion and the thoughts you brought to the table…I wish you well.