Plant and Animal Souls

[KindredSoul]

First thing’s first, it will be necessary to read this post. in order to understand the weight/importance of my questions.

That post explains why I believe that, if something is truly “alive” (as in, different from a rock or an automated collection of parts) then it must have a “core” not made of parts, because whatever is made of parts is essentially an elaborate “collage” (for lack of a better word). There is far more detail about that in the post to which I linked above. Without reading that post, the full gravity of these questions may not be fully apparent.

Okay, that established, my questions are these.

1. What precisely does the Church teach about plant and animal souls? I have heard them described as being different from human souls because they are “mortal” or “not material” but I have been unable to find an official, infallible source of Church teaching that states this outright. I know that human souls are different from animal souls, of course, in that we have a true “will” and the ability to “reason,” so I’m not doubting that we are different, but what and where does the Church infallibly teach about animal souls (include the official, infallible source)?
2. IF animals and plants have “material souls” then what does that mean, in relation to the post to which I linked? I can’t conceive of a “material soul” that is “made of parts” without this meaning that animals are not “real,” so to speak. That is to say, because whatever so-called “soul” that is made of parts could not have “qualia,” (see the link in the “What is a Soul” post to the Wikipedia article on Qualia), then a “soul” made of parts would be no more “alive” inside than a computer. To drive home the implications of this, it would mean that “animal cruelty” would be as nonsensical as “cruelty to rocks” because, if animals have no qualia but are just a collection of chemical and neurological reactions, there’s no real “entity” there to feel the pain. I don’t actually believe that, I DO believe that we should not be cruel to animals, but that’s because I believe animals do have an indivisible soul, material or otherwise, and that they therefore have “Qualia”.
3. IF, in light of #2, animals and plants have indivisible souls, yet these souls are “material,” then doesn’t that mean that animal souls must be “physically immortal”? That is to say that, while they don’t ordinarily “pass on to Heaven” like human souls, they last as long as the physical universe at least? Because “matter can neither be created nor destroyed” that means that any matter which is indivisible (and therefore will not decompose) will last for as long as “matter” is around. If animal souls are not spiritual, if they are part of the material universe, AND if they are not “made of parts” (as per #2 in conjunction with the post I linked) then it would seem that they must outlive their biological bodies, even if they won’t outlive the destruction of the material universe.
4. IF, on the other hand, animal souls are NOT matter, then what does this “Material souls” talk mean? There is only, so far as I know, “matter” and “spirit.” If something is not matter then it’s spirit, and vice versa, correct? In that case, if animal souls are NOT “matter” (which would render #3 irrelevant) this would mean they are spirit. This would mean that they might not be “physically immortal” because perhaps, since spirit need not obey material laws, their souls, despite being indivisible, could then be designed to just “cease existing” when the body died (which an indivisible soul made of matter could not do lest it violate the “matter is neither created nor destroyed” law). In that case, however, what would we make of the teaching (IF in fact it is Church teaching, as I hope to find out in the answers to #1) that man alone, among earthly creatures, has a spiritual aspect? Would it be possible that we would interpret that as not meaning that only humans have souls “made of” spirit, but rather that only human souls (as a general rule) can aspire to the higher spiritual things?
5. IF the Church can be demonstrated to infallibly teach that plants and animals have material, divisible souls–which logically would mean they do not have “Qualia” and are “blank inside” (which I do NOT believe, and I suspect that no one will thus be able to demonstrate that the Church teaches that their souls are divisible)–then what in the world does the Church mean by “soul”? If a soul (or at least an animal soul) is ONLY something that causes automation of biological bodies, but is not necessarily a source of “Qualia,” then doesn’t that sound an awful lot like “soul” (at least when animals are concerned, if the Church teaches such a thing about them) is just some sort of strange metaphysical equivalent of “electricity” rather than being anything inherently special? That would mean plants and animals were just “glorified biological A.I.” where “soul” to the biolobical A.I. was nothing more than a rough equivalent of “electricity/programming” to a manmade A.I. (I’m not saying that’s true, but it would be implied if the Church taught this)

I realize these questions are complicated and long, but I hope that this can spark some interesting answers. A lot of these questions hinge on the answers to #1 of course, as if the Church does not infallibly teach that animal souls are mortal and/or material, then the problems posed in the following questions do not arise.

Also, I realize that some people might laugh at the idea of plants (which also have souls, according to Church teaching) having “Qualia” as I tend to believe any soul would. This initial post is already too long and convoluted, but if anyone does indeed want to discuss that idea, I’ll gladly give my thoughts about that in future posts on this thread.

Thanks!

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Gorgias]

1. What precisely does the Church teach about plant and animal souls?

I can’t recall having seen a magisterial document that talks about it. However, Aquinas treats the question in the Summa Theologiae (I.78).

I have heard them described as being different from human souls because they are “mortal” or “not material” but I have been unable to find an official, infallible source of Church teaching that states this outright.

That’s probably because doctrine would more likely deal with the notion of the human soul, rather than plant or animal souls.

1. IF animals and plants have “material souls” then what does that mean, in relation to the post to which I linked?

I’ve never seen any treatment of the notion of ‘soul’ (plant, animal, or human) that suggests that the soul is material. Aquinas asserts that plant and animal souls are completely dependent on the material body of the plant/animal; however, this does not mean that the soul itself is material.

1. IF, on the other hand, animal souls are NOT matter, then what does this “Material souls” talk mean?

Help me out, here. In your citations, I don’t see the term ‘material soul’ appearing anywhere. Can you point out to me such a citation?

In that case, however, what would we make of the teaching (IF in fact it is Church teaching, as I hope to find out in the answers to #1) that man alone, among earthly creatures, has a spiritual aspect? Would it be possible that we would interpret that as not meaning that only humans have souls “made of” spirit, but rather that only human souls (as a general rule) can aspire to the higher spiritual things?

Only man has a rational soul. Made in the image and likeness of God, man’s soul is immortal. You use ‘spirit’ in a couple different ways here: when you write “spiritual aspect”, what do you mean? That the soul is spirit, not matter? If so, then animals and plants have ‘spiritual aspects’. Do you, perhaps, mean, that “spiritual aspect” speaks to something that proceeds from rationality? If so, then only humans have a ‘spiritual aspect’.

1. IF the Church can be demonstrated to infallibly teach that plants and animals have material, divisible souls

Unless you can find a reference to such an assertion, it is one that I can say I’ve never heard anyone make…

A lot of these questions hinge on the answers to #1 of course, as if the Church does not infallibly teach that animal souls are mortal and/or material, then the problems posed in the following questions do not arise.

To the best of my knowledge, the Church neither teaches ‘infallibly’ on plant and animal souls, nor does she teach that animal souls are material. Aquinas asserts that plant and animal souls are mortal, however.

Also, I realize that some people might laugh at the idea of plants (which also have souls, according to Church teaching) having “Qualia” as I tend to believe any soul would.

I don’t think that’s an odd suggestion at all! If by qualia you’re referring to subjective experiences based on physical sensation, then it would seem that all living beings have qualia. However, this does not imply that they have subjective experiences that engage one’s reason – only man, with a rational soul, is capable of that type of experience. Necessarily, then, human qualia can be of a different order than plant or animal qualia.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

First thing’s first, it will be necessary to read this post. in order to understand the weight/importance of my questions.

Okay, that established, my questions are these.

1. What precisely does the Church teach about plant and animal souls? I have heard them described as being different from human souls because they are “mortal” or “not material” but I have been unable to find an official, infallible source of Church teaching that states this outright. I know that human souls are different from animal souls, of course, in that we have a true “will” and the ability to “reason,” so I’m not doubting that we are different, but what and where does the Church infallibly teach about animal souls (include the official, infallible source)?

The Church teaches nothing about vegitative and animals souls. Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers discusse the topic in a round about way and modern Thomistic philosophers treat of it rather extensively in what may generally be called The Philosophy of Human Nature. Universally among Catholic philosophers it is held that plants and animals have immaterial souls totally dependent on the body so they are regarded as material souls and their view is that, for that reason, plant and animal souls do not survive the death of the body.

I personally do not agree with that view. My reasoning is that an immaterial substance, no matter of what type has no potency to non-existence because it is immaterial. And I admit a personal prejudice because I want to believe that my pets will live on after the coming of the New Earth and the New Heavens at the end of time. However I believe, for no good reason except that they do not have intellectual souls, that their future existence will be one which is purely natural. They will not enjoy the Beatific Vision. Only intellectual souls would be capable of that. P.S. If these souls are immaterial, they are not composed of matter.

This link may be of some help to you. arabicphilosophyjkh.wordpress.com/category/st-thomas-aquinas-and-the-nature-of-the-soul/

It would be better if you avoided using the term " qualia " because only those keeping up with modern philosophy will know what you mean. Thomists like me have no idea what you mean by the term. Some will of course. But laymen like myself just don’t have the time or inclination to follow all the modern movements in philosophy.

**In regard to your posts in general and this one in particular, they are too wide ranging. No one can begin to answer them in this format. I can give you some titles to Catholic thinking that deals directly with these issues if you are interested but you will have to ask for them. I have given them in previous posts but it is tiresome to do so if no one is going to follow up. You will have to purchase these books or find them in a library some where.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t recall having seen a magisterial document that talks about it. However, Aquinas treats the question in the Summa Theologiae (I.78).

That’s probably because doctrine would more likely deal with the notion of the human soul, rather than plant or animal souls.

I’ve never seen any treatment of the notion of ‘soul’ (plant, animal, or human) that suggests that the soul is material. Aquinas asserts that plant and animal souls are completely dependent on the material body of the plant/animal; however, this does not mean that the soul itself is material.

Help me out, here. In your citations, I don’t see the term ‘material soul’ appearing anywhere. Can you point out to me such a citation?

Only man has a rational soul. Made in the image and likeness of God, man’s soul is immortal. You use ‘spirit’ in a couple different ways here: when you write “spiritual aspect”, what do you mean? That the soul is spirit, not matter? If so, then animals and plants have ‘spiritual aspects’. Do you, perhaps, mean, that “spiritual aspect” speaks to something that proceeds from rationality? If so, then only humans have a ‘spiritual aspect’.

Unless you can find a reference to such an assertion, it is one that I can say I’ve never heard anyone make…



To the best of my knowledge, the Church neither teaches ‘infallibly’ on plant and animal souls, nor does she teach that animal souls are material. Aquinas asserts that plant and animal souls are mortal, however.

I don’t think that’s an odd suggestion at all! If by qualia you’re referring to subjective experiences based on physical sensation, then it would seem that all living beings have qualia. However, this does not imply that they have subjective experiences that engage one’s reason – only man, with a rational soul, is capable of that type of experience. Necessarily, then, human qualia can be of a different order than plant or animal qualia.

Very good answers.

 

[KindredSoul]

That’s probably because doctrine would more likely deal with the notion of the human soul, rather than plant or animal souls.

Oh yes, I agree. It’s just that I have indeed known otherwise well-informed Catholics that I know to defend the notion that animals have “material” souls or “mortal” souls with a seeming confidence that implies that they’ve heard it doctrinally somewhere. I didn’t believe it was found anywhere in Doctrine, but I didn’t want to dismiss it out of hand without posing the question publicly and giving the evidence of such “Doctrine” a chance to arise.

Help me out, here. In your citations, I don’t see the term ‘material soul’ appearing anywhere. Can you point out to me such a citation?

…

Unless you can find a reference to such an assertion, it is one that I can say I’ve never heard anyone make…

I’m glad to hear that, actually. I have heard it, albeit from people I’ve known personally. It seems like I might have read it somewhere on the CAF somewhere as well, but I’m not sure of that. Rather than outright hearing people say that “animals have material souls”, I’ve more so heard it put in the reverse wording but that would mean the same thing: “Only man consists of both spirit and matter,” which would obviously mean that animals didn’t have anything that was “spirit”, including their souls. Again, while it seems to me that I’ve seen that on CAF, maybe it’s only been people that I know personally who have said it.

Only man has a rational soul. Made in the image and likeness of God, man’s soul is immortal. You use ‘spirit’ in a couple different ways here: when you write “spiritual aspect”, what do you mean? That the soul is spirit, not matter? If so, then animals and plants have ‘spiritual aspects’.

That’s what I mean, thanks.

I don’t think that’s an odd suggestion at all! If by qualia you’re referring to subjective experiences based on physical sensation, then it would seem that all living beings have qualia. However, this does not imply that they have subjective experiences that engage one’s reason – only man, with a rational soul, is capable of that type of experience. Necessarily, then, human qualia can be of a different order than plant or animal qualia.

Thanks; I do not believe that animals have true reason (as opposed to mere intelligence), and so I can certainly agree with all that you’ve said here.

Universally among Catholic philosophers it is held that plants and animals have immaterial souls totally dependent on the body so they are regarded as material souls and their view is that, for that reason, plant and animal souls do not survive the death of the body.

I personally do not agree with that view. My reasoning is that an immaterial substance, no matter of what type has no potency to non-existence because it is immaterial. And I admit a personal prejudice because I want to believe that my pets will live on after the coming of the New Earth and the New Heavens at the end of time. However I believe, for no good reason except that they do not have intellectual souls, that their future existence will be one which is purely natural. They will not enjoy the Beatific Vision. Only intellectual souls would be capable of that. P.S. If these souls are immaterial, they are not composed of matter.

That sounds reasonable to me. I personally believe that animal souls are 1) Immaterial/spiritual and 2) Immortal. I just wanted to make sure that no one had any binding dogma that would compell me to believe otherwise.

It would be better if you avoided using the term " qualia " because only those keeping up with modern philosophy will know what you mean. Thomists like me have no idea what you mean by the term. Some will of course. But laymen like myself just don’t have the time or inclination to follow all the modern movements in philosophy.

My apologies; however I have not come across a term that captures that meaning without having other implications. I (and others) have tried using the word “consciousness”, for example, but some take that to mean “conscious as opposed to unconsious (such as, knocked out)” which would miss the point entirely of what we’re trying to say. I did link to the definition, though, in my OP, and I’m open to equivalent terms.

**In regard to your posts in general and this one in particular, they are too wide ranging. No one can begin to answer them in this format. I can give you some titles to Catholic thinking that deals directly with these issues if you are interested but you will have to ask for them. I have given them in previous posts but it is tiresome to do so if no one is going to follow up. You will have to purchase these books or find them in a library some where.

Do you mean my questions in general within this thread? Or do you mean to say that you have read through my posts on the forums in general and that you believe my posts are too wide ranging for people to answer?

Either way, I am not sure that my posts are that bad; just as Gorgias has answered my questions (some of which were rendered irrelevant by parts of his answers, and so even though he didn’t answer those it was because he didn’t have to do so), in my posting history here on the forums, I have generally found someone willing and able to answer. I admit that I do tend to make wide-ranging posts, but that’s because I’ve found that in many topics any questions/answers more complex than a “yes/no” basis are often more wide-ranging than they may first appear, so that in order to fully answer one question, you end up having to answer several more. I have a tendency to go ahead and acknowledge the “several more” all at once, rather than wait for them to come up one by one.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[KindredSoul]

**In regard to your posts in general and this one in particular, they are too wide ranging. No one can begin to answer them in this format. I can give you some titles to Catholic thinking that deals directly with these issues if you are interested but you will have to ask for them. I have given them in previous posts but it is tiresome to do so if no one is going to follow up. You will have to purchase these books or find them in a library some where.

Actually, I think I just realized that your post was not a comment on my posting style, so much as thinking that perhaps CAF isn’t the place to get answers for wide-ranging questions. Whoops, I had interpreted “no one…can answer them in this format” as “in the format in which you have written them” as opposed to “in the format in which a forum is set up” (a sentiment which, even if I don’t quite agree, I do understand and see your point). So part of my former reply to you probably seems irrelevant, thanks to that misinterpretation on my part.

And thanks for your answers, by the way!

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Gorgias]

I personally believe that animal souls are 1) Immaterial/spiritual and 2) Immortal. I just wanted to make sure that no one had any binding dogma that would compell me to believe otherwise.

Well… now that you put it that way…

Let’s talk about the rational soul of a human being. The Catechism has this to say:

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

So, when the CCC says ‘soul’, they mean ‘spiritual principle in man’. I don’t think they mean that only humans have souls that are of spirit (as opposed to ‘of matter’); they’re using ‘spiritual’ in a particular sense that isn’t addressing the matter/spirit issue.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul

So, the notion of the spiritual (i.e., ‘human’) soul is bound up in the concept of being “in the image of God”.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

And here, the CCC asserts that ‘spiritual souls’ are immortal.

So, if you’re following the chain of logic, we have: the kind of soul that (only a) human has, is a participation in the “image of God”. This kind of soul is immortal. Now, the Bible says only that humans were made in the “image and likeness of God”. Therefore, animals and plants don’t have this kind of soul. If the kind of soul that’s immortal is the kind of soul that’s “in the image and likeness”, then I think it’s reasonable to conclude by inference that the Catechism is saying that animals aren’t immortal. (NB: the Catechism isn’t saying that animal souls are material, though.)

(The age-old question “will I see my dog in heaven” is a question of a different nature, of course. )

 

[davidv]

The Church teaches nothing about vegitative and animals souls. Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers discusse the topic in a round about way and modern Thomistic philosophers treat of it rather extensively in what may generally be called The Philosophy of Human Nature. Universally among Catholic philosophers it is held that plants and animals have immaterial souls totally dependent on the body so they are regarded as material souls and their view is that, for that reason, plant and animal souls do not survive the death of the body.

I personally do not agree with that view. My reasoning is that an immaterial substance, no matter of what type has no potency to non-existence because it is immaterial. And I admit a personal prejudice because I want to believe that my pets will live on after the coming of the New Earth and the New Heavens at the end of time. However I believe, for no good reason except that they do not have intellectual souls, that their future existence will be one which is purely natural. They will not enjoy the Beatific Vision. Only intellectual souls would be capable of that. P.S. If these souls are immaterial, they are not composed of matter.

This link may be of some help to you. arabicphilosophyjkh.wordpress.com/category/st-thomas-aquinas-and-the-nature-of-the-soul/

It would be better if you avoided using the term " qualia " because only those keeping up with modern philosophy will know what you mean. Thomists like me have no idea what you mean by the term. Some will of course. But laymen like myself just don’t have the time or inclination to follow all the modern movements in philosophy.

**In regard to your posts in general and this one in particular, they are too wide ranging. No one can begin to answer them in this format. I can give you some titles to Catholic thinking that deals directly with these issues if you are interested but you will have to ask for them. I have given them in previous posts but it is tiresome to do so if no one is going to follow up. You will have to purchase these books or find them in a library some where.

Based on a very cursury understanding of Aquinas and a recent reading of Edward Fesser’s Aquinas I believe souls are not a “substance”, they are a form. It therefore seems your concern about an immaterial substance as it regards the soul is unwarranted.

 

[KindredSoul]

So, when the CCC says ‘soul’, they mean ‘spiritual principle in man’. I don’t think they mean that only humans have souls that are of spirit (as opposed to ‘of matter’); they’re using ‘spiritual’ in a particular sense that isn’t addressing the matter/spirit issue.

That makes sense. That was actually my musing too, on the last sentence of #4 in my OP, as for why the Church might seem to point to man as being special for having a “Spiritual soul” if animals and plants had souls of spirit as well.

So, the notion of the spiritual (i.e., ‘human’) soul is bound up in the concept of being “in the image of God”.

And here, the CCC asserts that ‘spiritual souls’ are immortal.

So, if you’re following the chain of logic, we have: the kind of soul that (only a) human has, is a participation in the “image of God”. This kind of soul is immortal. Now, the Bible says only that humans were made in the “image and likeness of God”. Therefore, animals and plants don’t have this kind of soul. If the kind of soul that’s immortal is the kind of soul that’s “in the image and likeness”, then I think it’s reasonable to conclude by inference that the Catechism is saying that animals aren’t immortal.

While I agree that it’s logically possible that animal souls are not immortal–and ironically, that’s only conceivably possible if they are “spiritual” since spirit may not follow the same rules as matter and therefore doesn’t have to follow the “neither created nor destroyed” rule–I’m not sure that their mortality is inherent to those quotes from the Catechism. Those quotes, to me personally, seem only to affirm and emphasize the immortality of humans, rather than necessarily pointing to the mortality of animals. That is to say that those quotes are making sure that we realize that to be “made in the image of God” is to be immortal, but they are not necessarily indicating that to be made otherwise is to not be immortal.

(The age-old question “will I see my dog in heaven” is a question of a different nature, of course. )

Agreed. Regardless of what happens to animals by their inherent nature, we really don’t know what Heaven holds, aside from God and the Saints, and we don’t know the full nature of the endless ways God shall have of delighting us there, including the possibility of his “re-creating” a pet for our delight, if He so chooses, even if the pet was not inherently immortal. At least that’s what I make of it.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh yes, I agree. It’s just that I have indeed known otherwise well-informed Catholics that I know to defend the notion that animals have “material” souls or “mortal” souls with a seeming confidence that implies that they’ve heard it doctrinally somewhere. I didn’t believe it was found anywhere in Doctrine, but I didn’t want to dismiss it out of hand without posing the question publicly and giving the evidence of such “Doctrine” a chance to arise.

I’m glad to hear that, actually. I have heard it, albeit from people I’ve known personally. It seems like I might have read it somewhere on the CAF somewhere as well, but I’m not sure of that. Rather than outright hearing people say that “animals have material souls”, I’ve more so heard it put in the reverse wording but that would mean the same thing: “Only man consists of both spirit and matter,” which would obviously mean that animals didn’t have anything that was “spirit”, including their souls. Again, while it seems to me that I’ve seen that on CAF, maybe it’s only been people that I know personally who have said it.

That’s what I mean, thanks.

Thanks; I do not believe that animals have true reason (as opposed to mere intelligence), and so I can certainly agree with all that you’ve said here.

That sounds reasonable to me. I personally believe that animal souls are 1) Immaterial/spiritual and 2) Immortal. I just wanted to make sure that no one had any binding dogma that would compell me to believe otherwise.

My apologies; however I have not come across a term that captures that meaning without having other implications. I (and others) have tried using the word “consciousness”, for example, but some take that to mean “conscious as opposed to unconsious (such as, knocked out)” which would miss the point entirely of what we’re trying to say. I did link to the definition, though, in my OP, and I’m open to equivalent terms.

Do you mean my questions in general within this thread? Or do you mean to say that you have read through my posts on the forums in general and that you believe my posts are too wide ranging for people to answer?

Either way, I am not sure that my posts are that bad; just as Gorgias has answered my questions (some of which were rendered irrelevant by parts of his answers, and so even though he didn’t answer those it was because he didn’t have to do so), in my posting history here on the forums, I have generally found someone willing and able to answer. I admit that I do tend to make wide-ranging posts, but that’s because I’ve found that in many topics any questions/answers more complex than a “yes/no” basis are often more wide-ranging than they may first appear, so that in order to fully answer one question, you end up having to answer several more. I have a tendency to go ahead and acknowledge the “several more” all at once, rather than wait for them to come up one by one.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

Let’s just say that, and I don’t intend to be critical, but to answer your posts are not impossible but the effort would be fatiguing to do them justice. One cannot really answer a post of 2040 bites with another of 2040 bites. It would take much more to give an adequate response. Linus