Man and the Animals

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnimalsAtSide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnimalsAtSide

Guest
I wanted to share my blog for my senior project in my New Evangelization program. My focus is connected to St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Principle and Foundation in that all created things are for man that they may “help him in attaining the end for which he is created.”

Here is the link:
animalsatyourside.wordpress.com/

In this blog, I explore the connection that exists between man and animal, and the realizations that emerge from a proper understanding of this connection. Through animal encounters, Scripture, the works of philosophers, and other writings, I delve into topics such as:
• The nature of man and animals
• How animals aid in our happiness
• The training of animals
• And more…
 
Very nice blog! A much needed type of evangelization here at CAF. A lot of die-hard sport hunters here. We even had a thread in Prayer Intentions to pray for animal abusers (that they have a change of heart) where someone actually posted to belittle the intention! I still have hope, however! 🙂 You might like this website:

catholic-animals.org/

You may also like:

newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html#.UezA-WzD_cs

Somehow, the idea that animals are conscious doesn’t really matter to some people…🤷 Thank you for the link to your blog!
 
In reply to that second link, animals do not have intellect and will (these are spiritual powers and belong solely to humans). There seems to be a confusion of the terms brain and intellect – the brain is not our mind, the intellect (spiritual) uses the brain (material). However, animals have material sensitive souls (not intellectual souls) and are able to have sensations and sensible memories.

For the intellect has no corporeal organ: “But in the intellect, which has no corporeal organ, nothing but what is intelligible exists.”[1] The animal is a material being and cannot know concepts, as concepts are immaterial. An animal does not possess the capability to have true knowledge. Simple apprehension only gives one a tree, judgment joins that term to another term. Both concepts have to be in the mind to make a judgment.

It must be noted, that it is not degrading to animals to say this…it shows the order of creation. We are stewards of creation and therefore, we are to care for animals.

[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I Q 79
 
In reply to that second link, animals do not have intellect and will (these are spiritual powers and belong solely to humans). There seems to be a confusion of the terms brain and intellect – the brain is not our mind, the intellect (spiritual) uses the brain (material). However, animals have material sensitive souls (not intellectual souls) and are able to have sensations and sensible memories.

For the intellect has no corporeal organ: “But in the intellect, which has no corporeal organ, nothing but what is intelligible exists.”[1] The animal is a material being and cannot know concepts, as concepts are immaterial. An animal does not possess the capability to have true knowledge. Simple apprehension only gives one a tree, judgment joins that term to another term. Both concepts have to be in the mind to make a judgment.

It must be noted, that it is not degrading to animals to say this…it shows the order of creation. We are stewards of creation and therefore, we are to care for animals.

[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I Q 79
First, this article is not about “intellect” or “will”. I did not offer this link as anything other than the viability of the idea that animals are “conscious”. Totally different subject.

You are correct in that “brain” (a physical item) does not equal “mind” (does not have physical form), but again, the article was not a treatise on this subject.

Now “intellect” can be defined a couple of different ways, i.e., the way Aquinas meant it—“the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters”–and the real-world definition, which would be “the faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels or wills; capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge”. With the latter definition in mind (no pun intended), animals do indeed have “intellect”.

I do not know what it means to “know concepts”, so I’d have to have your definition before I can comment on whether or not an animal is capable of them. The same is true of “true knowledge”. What is your definition of this, because in my understanding, animals do indeed possess knowledge. They are capable of learning.

I don’t think you meant to use the term “apprehension” in your post. Again, I did not offer the article to endow animals with the power to “judge”. I don’t really understand the last two sentences of your second paragraph, anyway.

My understand of an animal’s “soul”—at least in accordance with Catholicism—is that it is not “immortal” and therefore unequal to that of man. Moreover, because of this inequality, the souls of animals will not be in Heaven. When you speak of the “sensitive” vs. the “intellectual” soul, you are getting into an area of Summa, of which I know nothing and on which I cannot comment.

To date, there is no scientific evidence that animals “feel” or have emotions. In my heart, I know they do, but again, no demonstrable evidence. That being said, since we are just sticking our toe into the waters of animal consciousness, is it too hard to believe that animals can “feel” also? And as far as the Church’s opinion—speculation, not proof—that there are no animals in Heaven, if that’s true, I don’t wanna go there. :nope:
 
And as far as the Church’s opinion—speculation, not proof—that there are no animals in Heaven, if that’s true, I don’t wanna go there. :nope:
Animals are wonderful, aren’t they? I am so deeply thankful that we have been blessed as stewards of the animals, and that we have been given their companionship! But please, try not to put your love of animals above your love of the very Lord who gave them to us. If He for whatever reason has decided there are no animals in Heaven, I sincerely hope you still would like to go there. 👍 Have trust! Whatever is best will be! :aok:
 
The reason I brought intellect and will into the matter is because many people limit humans to the material and therefore confuse animals and humans as being one and the same. I did this to highlight the spiritual nature of human beings, and to show that humans are not simply a higher degree of animals.

The common-use definition of intellect, however, still has some problems. In that definition there are a whole bunch of other terms that need to be defined, such as “knows and understands” and “knowledge.”

By “true knowledge” I mean, to know the nature (whatness) of a thing.[1] For example, humans can reason that even when trees look completely different, they are still tress i.e. evergreens and palm trees are both trees even though the senses tell us that they look different.

The particulars of a sensed object - the look, smell, and sound as tied to the senses – are stored in the sensible memory. The memory of species, or the nature of a thing, is stored in the intellect.[2] For example, an animal can know the particulars (the look of its trainer) but not the universals (the nature of a person – what a person is). When a dog is sniffing a tree is not does have an understanding of trees or their nature, but can remember the specific smells of times when it has sniffed other trees…it may even know that a tree is a tree in so much as it connects its sense perception of a particular tree to the tree it is currently sensing.

Those last two sentences were to highlight that apprehension and judgment (in the strict definitions of the words) are acts of the intellect and are solely human acts. But, I agree, the placing of those sentences were off and confusing.

By sensitive soul, I mean the ability to have sensations…this is something humans share with animals. An animal can sense what man is feeling because of that sharing in sensitivity. Moreover, animals were created for man…to share in his life. While man is to directly serve God, the animals are to serve God through serving man. Animals seek to do the will of man (in so far as man’s will is that of God’s). I would say, animals do not seek man just for the sake of receiving food, they are seeking man as their cause. Animals have, then, in their nature a desire for man. And because of this desire that is built into the nature of animals, they are willing and able to work with man. The relationship between man and animal is not something forced or artificial…it is something natural and real.

Creation needed man to lead it…creation could not fully come to God on its own. It was not supposed to end with God bringing the animals to man, man was to bring the animals back to God. The animals could approach God by fulfilling their nature in reproduction, locomotion, and sensation. But without man they cannot be complete, they cannot fully participate in a likeness to God.[3]

Man, being both material and spiritual, can take in the animals through his physical senses and make them spirit through his intellect. The animals can be raised to the level of spirit through man who sums up all creation in himself. Man is the representative of all creation. It is through us that animals will be in Heaven…we will represent animals in Heaven. In us the animals are brought back to God…in us the animals reach perfection.

[1] Aristotle, Posterior Analytics II
[2] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I Q 79
[3] See Fr. Michael Gaitley, The One Thing is Three, 66-71
 
Animals are wonderful, aren’t they? I am so deeply thankful that we have been blessed as stewards of the animals, and that we have been given their companionship! But please, try not to put your love of animals above your love of the very Lord who gave them to us. If He for whatever reason has decided there are no animals in Heaven, I sincerely hope you still would like to go there. 👍 Have trust! Whatever is best will be! :aok:
No, I don’t put Him before his creation, but if the Church is right, and there are no animals–or plants, for that matter–in Heaven, I’m sure He will allow us to understand why or why not after we depart this world. Anyway, I’d like to think so. 🤷
 
The Church’s ethics concerning animals is quite, umm, conflicting. On one hand, they say that animals are meant to further man’s existence on the planet. We are their stewards as is noted in *Genesis *1:28; therefore, buying a mink coat is considered acceptable. On the other hand, we are not to cause animals pain for the sake of causing them pain. Assuming the Church ethicists know the down and dirty of mink farms, how does Catholicism reconcile the two ideas? The inconsistency boggles the mind, not to mention the spirit. It just seems that the Church is doing a lot of scrambling to figure out its position on animal rights and advocacy. It has been suggested that the ethics of Aquinas and even Immanuel Kant are lacking in this regard. In his book, Gods, Humans and Animals: an invitation to enlarge our moral universe, Robert N. Wennberg says that Aquinas and Kant “hold a moral theory that has no place for animals; yet being decent individuals, they do not want to be so insensitive as to be morally indifferent to the cruel and abusive treatment of animals. The trick for them is to morally condemn cruelty to animals without admitting direct moral obligations to animals. It can be done, they judge, by arguing that those who mistreat animals are likely to mistreat humans and for that reason – and that reason alone – such mistreatment is wrong.” I think it’s here that the Church seems to be stuck. 🤷
 
Animals seek to do the will of man (in so far as man’s will is that of God’s). I would say, animals do not seek man just for the sake of receiving food, they are seeking man as their cause. Animals have, then, in their nature a desire for man. And because of this desire that is built into the nature of animals, they are willing and able to work with man.
You’ve never had a cat, have you??? :rotfl:
 
Perhaps the confusion arises from the fact that the area of animals has not been overly explored and it is not an area that is black and white…there’s not a clear-cut list spelling out every issue. The Church has made more of a general statement and entrusts us to use our reason from those truths. I wouldn’t say the Church is stuck, but rather holds the dignity of the human person as her starting point when speaking on this topic.

With any discernment, I find St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Principle and Foundation as a helpful guide: “Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul. And the other things on the face of the earth are created for man and that they may help him in attaining the end for which he is created. From this it follows that man is to use them as much as they help him on to his end, and ought to rid himself of them so far as they hinder him as to it. For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created things in all that is allowed to the choice of our free will and is not prohibited to it…”

Remember the Fall happened, and man’s relationship with creation suffered. Also, think how prior to the Fall man’s passions followed reason but as a result of the Fall his passions are inclined to rebel against reason. Man has to train his passions to be in line with reason. Going back to the animals, I would say the animals have to be trained to be in line with man.
 
No, I don’t put Him before his creation, but if the Church is right, and there are no animals–or plants, for that matter–in Heaven, I’m sure He will allow us to understand why or why not after we depart this world. Anyway, I’d like to think so. 🤷
That first sentence should have read “No, I don’t put His creation before Him…” :o
 
I agree with you that there is confusion because the God-man-animal inter-relationship has not really been explored. That is why I was so excited about “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness”. It was an opinion of the scientific world—not me standing on a box in the middle of Times Square using anthropomorphic arguments to further the idea that animals may be more “aware” than what the Church currently thinks.

IMHO, the Church has not made any “general statement” as I showed in my example of the fur farms. For every priest that hunts, there is a priest that says hunting “desensitize humans to the suffering of other creatures”. Ignatius’ P&F is a good rule of thumb (for want of a better term) but Ignatius wrote this in the early 16th century, before any real knowledge (in the scientific sense) about animals existed. If Ignatius had written anything about animals that was less abstract, it would be interesting to see if he embraced the inferences in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that animals do have souls—immortal ones, at that. Recall the stories of the sparrows. There is a nice essay by John Jeremiah Sullivan which addresses the Cambridge Declaration and how the possibility of consciousness in animals should make us re-evaluate the God-man-animal inter-relationship:

laphamsquarterly.org/essays/one-of-us.php?page=all

Had they known about the Cambridge Declaration, I think Aquinas, Kant and Ignatius might have written things differently.

I’m not quite sure that I am interpreting your last sentence correctly, though. What does it mean for an animal having to be “trained to be in line with man”? Since **man **was the one who screwed up the relationship between God and His creation, why would **animals **have to be changed?
 
I’m sure you are aware of CCC 2416-2418, which specifically addresses the topic of animals, but I would classify this as a general statement that sheds light on the subject:

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity.

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

358 God created everything for man,222 but man** in turn** was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223

{emphasis added}

Man is the reason for or cause of the animals’ existence. An animal’s existence flows from man as an effect flows from a cause. The animals’ purpose consists in serving man, so without man the animals would be incomplete. Animals need man in order to attain perfection [completion]. Man makes animals truly be animals.

Think how the first man is given “dominion” over the animals, acting as the king of creation (cf. Gen 1:28). As a king guides and directs his people, man is to guide and direct the animals. As the people look to the king, the animals look to man for direction and purpose. In a kingly relationship, the king looks after those under his care, and those under his care know that he has their best interest in mind. It is as if in the mandate given to Adam to have dominion over the animals, the animals are also given the mandate to be under the dominion of man. It is in the animals’ essence to serve man. An animal’s essence not only comes from man but also depends on man. This also implies that creation needed man to lead it.

So in training animals, man is not “changing” them but rather perfecting/completing them. In training animals, man is restoring them to be what they were created to be.

It wasn’t that man ruined the relationship between “God and His creation” but rather the relationship between man and creation.

Lastly, I don’t see how you can say that in his gospel, Matthew is inferring that animals have immortal souls. If you are referring to Matthew 6:25-34, you must recognize that Jesus is speaking in a parable here…furthermore Christ immediately follows His example with “Are you not of more value than they?” (v.26)
 
I’m sure you are aware of CCC 2416-2418, which specifically addresses the topic of animals, but I would classify this as a general statement that sheds light on the subject:
Yes, I read it. No, doesn’t shed any light on how to deal with today’s issues of animal abuse, rights and advocacy. It is lukewarm, so I spat it out.
355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
No problem here.
356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity.
It is interesting that the CCC added the word “only”. It does not appear in Gaudium et Spes:
For Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created “to the image of God,” is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures(1) that he might subdue them and use them to God’s glory.(2) “What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet” (Ps. 8:5-7).
So, upon source does the CCC base its addition of the word “only”?
357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.
I am going to keep clear who’s who in this passage with the words/names in parentheses:

“Being in the image of God, the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He (man) is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself, and entering into communion with other persons. And he (man) is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer Him (God) a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his (man’s) stead.”

This **absolutely **does not say that creatures other than man are not capable of believing in and loving their Creator. It only says that animals cannot give God the same type of faith and love that an animal can.
358 God created everything for man,222 but man** in turn** was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223

{emphasis added}
No problem here, either.
 
Man is the reason for or cause of the animals’ existence.
I would say that man is **one **reason for God’s creation of the animals. Further, I would say that another reason would be to give Him glory.
An animal’s existence flows from man as an effect flows from a cause.
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?
The animals’ purpose consists in serving man, so without man the animals would be incomplete. Animals need man in order to attain perfection [completion]. Man makes animals truly be animals.
To say what you’re saying would mean that God created something imperfect. Can’t happen; didn’t happen.
Think how the first man is given “dominion” over the animals, acting as the king of creation (cf. Gen 1:28). As a king guides and directs his people, man is to guide and direct the animals.
I am hesitant to call man “the king of creation”. I would think that God is the “King”.
As the people look to the king, the animals look to man for direction and purpose.
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?”
In a kingly relationship, the king looks after those under his care, and those under his care know that he has their best interest in mind.
In the Garden of Eden, yes. In the real world, no.
It is as if in the mandate given to Adam to have dominion over the animals, the animals are also given the mandate to be under the dominion of man.
Possibly, but speculation.
It is in the animals’ essence to serve man. An animal’s essence not only comes from man but also depends on man. This also implies that creation needed man to lead it.
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. 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?
So in training animals, man is not “changing” them but rather perfecting/completing them. In training animals, man is restoring them to be what they were created to be.
May I have the source for these statements?
It wasn’t that man ruined the relationship between “God and His creation” but rather the relationship between man and creation.
I correct that sentence to read “Since man was the one who screwed up the inter-relationship among God, man and His creation, why would animals have to be changed; that is, ‘trained to be in line with man’?"
Lastly, I don’t see how you can say that in his gospel, Matthew is inferring that animals have immortal souls. If you are referring to Matthew 6:25-34, you must recognize that Jesus is speaking in a parable here…furthermore Christ immediately follows His example with “Are you not of more value than they?” (v.26)
I take it that you did not read the essay in Lapham’s Quarterly that I had recommended. Anyway, I am referring to *Matthew *6:26 specifically:

“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?”

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?

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.”

(emphasis mine)

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

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. And I do believe that the Church is “stuck” on these issues. They are trying very hard not to disagree with Aquinas, who had some pretty bizarre ideas about the soul. The Magisterium has already overruled him on some specifics about the nature of the soul. Why not on others, specifically, the nature of the animal soul?
 
This **absolutely **does not say that creatures other than man are not capable of believing in and loving their Creator. It only says that animals cannot give God the same type of faith and love that an animal can.
Correction. The last sentence should read: “It only says that animals cannot give God the same type of faith and love that **man **can.”
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnimalsAtSide View Post
Man is the reason for or cause of the animals’ existence.

I would say that man is one reason for God’s creation of the animals. Further, I would say that another reason would be to give Him glory.

mdcpensive1:
I wonder what the purpose of the dinosaur raptors and T-rexs were for. It seems man would be in the diet of the large carnivors ?? Unless they were to eventually after many centuries, provide oil for our cars !!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnimalsAtSide View Post
Man is the reason for or cause of the animals’ existence.

I would say that man is one reason for God’s creation of the animals. Further, I would say that another reason would be to give Him glory.

mdcpensive1:
I wonder what the purpose of the dinosaur raptors and T-rexs were for. It seems man would be in the diet of the large carnivors ?? Unless they were to eventually after many centuries, provide oil for our cars !!
Once more, in English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top