The life of the animals

[severus68]

From EWTN

Pets in Heaven?

A question that comes up frequently is whether people will see their pets in heaven. Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not directly address this question. But it does hold principles which lead us in the direction of an answer.

One principle is that all living things have a soul. Here soul is defined as what makes an organic body live. Now when any living thing dies, its soul is separated from its body. In the case of plants and animals the soul goes out of existence. But in the case of man, the soul remains in existence because it is a spiritual or immaterial thing. Consequently, it differs from the souls of animals in two important respects. First, it is the seat of intelligence or reason. For this reason a man is held responsible for his actions in a way that animals are not. Secondly, the soul is immortal. A thing which has no physical parts cannot fall apart or be poisoned or be crushed or be put out of existence. For this reason the souls of the saved will always be aware of themselves as enjoying the vision of God for all eternity. This enjoyment will be the result of having chosen to act on earth in such a way that one did the will of God rather than one’s own will. And the souls of the damned will be aware of themselves as never attaining this vision of God because they have shown by their lives on earth that they did not wish this vision but instead preferred their own will.

In the light of this essential difference between human beings and animals, it would seem that we would not see the souls of our pets in heaven for the simple reason that they do not have immortal souls and are not responsible for their actions. They do not have the intelligence which allows them to choose either God’s will or their own will. There is, then, an incomparable distance, say, between the soul of the sorriest human being who ever lived and the most noble brute animal that ever walked the earth.

Now a child might be heartbroken at the thought that he will never see his pet again. He cannot yet understand this explanation about the difference between the human and the animal soul. I suppose that one could tell the child that when he hopefully gets to heaven, he could ask God to see his old pets if he still wished to. There would be no harm in that. For we know that when a person finally sees God, he will not be concerned with seeing old pets or favorite places but rather will be captured in the complete fulfillment of the joy of which old pets and favorite places are but little signs. We adults know that, even if the child does not.

For more information on how the Church sees animals in the lives of human beings, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2415-2418. You will learn, for example, that the Church, while it condemns cruelty to animals as an offense against the dignity of man, allow experiments on animals if done in a reasonable way. Again, you will learn of the tremendous difference that the Church sees between the lowliest of human beings and the most noble of the animals. It will allow animals to be used for food or clothing, but will defend the right of an innocent human being to live against Kings and Nations. The Church will demand that animals be respected as part of creation while at the same time insisting that the dignity owed a human being should never be given to an animal.
Answered by Dr. Richard Geraghty, PhD

You may hold that view, it is not mine. I would find something quite different on a Franciscan site for example.

 

[SilverLight]

You may hold that view, it is not mine. I would find something quite different on a Franciscan site for example.

Yes I for one would love to see all my pets again…like my first pet fish…that marked a special moment for me in life.

 

[AHapka]

Just have to jump in and say animals do not have souls only humans do.

I thought it was well established theology that all living things have souls, but only humans are known for sure to be immortal.

Are there dogs in Heaven? Only God knows! Nothing is impossible for Him, so if he desires so…they are there. If not, they are not.

 

[King_Lazy]

Even though animals don’t have an eternal soul, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we’ll never see them again.

As Christians, we believe in the literal resurrection of the body, and that we will all have physical, material bodies in Heaven at the end of the world. And so, while God has not given animals an eternal, spiritual soul, He has endowed them with a material body and soul.

There is no compelling reason why He might not resurrect departed animals’ material bodies and souls for His own glory and for their own natural happiness and the happiness of the people who loved those creatures.

I think animal lovers can take heart in the fact that final Heaven, the New Earth, is not only spiritual but also material, and that there is every possibility that purely material beings, such as animals, may indeed be there with us.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Being from MN I have no idea what shark finning is, but it sounds nasty. Anyway, yes animals are not there to be treated badly–by us causing unnecessary pain and suffering. We are to respect that they are creatures created by God and treat them humanely.

Shark finning is catching a shark, severing its fin from its body, and then releasing the shark to drown.

The fins of sharks are highly sought in Asia.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I am anti sharkfinning and also against the abuse of any and all animals.
I just want to see how others feel about it all.
Feel free to share what you want and if anyone wants to pm me go ahead.

Such a pleasure to see your expression of love for animals.

Many “theologians” on this Forum pride themselves on using fancy terms and “authoritative” reasoning to demonstrate how they, the humans, differ from them, the animals, and how that difference justifies their organizing to manipulate and consume them.

I like the sweet, simple words of Leonardo da Vinci: We are only as civilized, as we respect the weakest among us - embryos and animals.

 

[AHapka]

I think animal lovers can take heart in the fact that final Heaven, the New Earth, is not only spiritual but also material, and that there is every possibility that purely material beings, such as animals, may indeed be there with us.

I sure do hope so, especially considering that when God made them they were good. And Heaven is all about good things.

 

[severus68]

Such a pleasure to see your expression of love for animals.

Many “theologians” on this Forum pride themselves on using fancy terms and “authoritative” reasoning to demonstrate how they, the humans, differ from them, the animals, and how that difference justifies their organizing to manipulate and consume them.

I like the sweet, simple words of Leonardo da Vinci: We are only as civilized, as we respect the weakest among us - embryos and animals.

 

[kama3]

I have no problem violating the will or the desires of an animal. Last I heard, creatures exist for our sake. This concept of animal “rights” is a new one to me. Where do their rights come from anyway?

Do police dogs move freely and lie down when they want, or do they obey?

You’ve never seen a lab rat trying to run away from your syringe, obviously. So even if indeed God made them for our sake, my lab rats apparently didn’t get the memo.

I can tell you from personal experience that rats (which are relatively primitive animals) surely do experience fear and pain. (In fact, fear and pain levels in animals are measurable by measuring levels of certain hormones and neurotransmitters). I’m also reasonably certain that more developed animals (such as dogs) are capable of higher feelings such as love and compassion. See e.g.: youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

And don’t even get me started on monkeys:
youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A
youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg&feature=related

So – I find these claims of human exceptionality greatly exaggerated.

 

[kama3]

Worse, if a puppy or a horse dies in a movie, the audience freaks out and cries like babies. But if a person gets killed in a movie, there’s hardly an emotional response from the audience. Our sympathies are invested entirely in the wrong place.

Nah, it’s simply the way the movie makers manipulate audience’s emotions.

If an animal dies in the movie, it usually dies near the end, after the audience has established an emotional bond with it. Also, there are usually multiple scenes which are there to make the audience associate with the animal.

Most humans which die in the movies are enemies of the protagonist (hence, the audience is already primed negatively against them) and appear on the screen a short while before the protagonist kills them – hence, audience has no time to start liking them. (Think Rambo).

 

[Della]

You’ve never seen a lab rat trying to run away from your syringe, obviously. So even if indeed God made them for our sake, my lab rats apparently didn’t get the memo.

I can tell you from personal experience that rats (which are relatively primitive animals) surely do experience fear and pain. (In fact, fear and pain levels in animals are measurable by measuring levels of certain hormones and neurotransmitters). I’m also reasonably certain that more developed animals (such as dogs) are capable of higher feelings such as love and compassion. See e.g.: youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

And don’t even get me started on monkeys:
youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A
youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg&feature=related

So – I find these claims of human exceptionality greatly exaggerated.

Human exceptionality is not our doing, so we can take no credit for it.

I totally agree that animals experience fear and pain–all the more reason to treat them humanely and not cause them undo suffering. When we had to have some of our ill cats put down it was very hard for us to do, but we had to think of what was best for them, not that we wanted to keep them with us. They cannot understand why they suffer nor do they have any conception of the sufferings of their species or of others, although they can show affection towards others who suffer. Their intelligence is limited, but they certainly have feelings, which we must respect and take into account when dealing with them. They are our responsiblity and our heritage, so we have to do all we can to ensure they aren’t abused or misused.

 

[Rainaldo]

You’ve never seen a lab rat trying to run away from your syringe, obviously. So even if indeed God made them for our sake, my lab rats apparently didn’t get the memo.

I can tell you from personal experience that rats (which are relatively primitive animals) surely do experience fear and pain. (In fact, fear and pain levels in animals are measurable by measuring levels of certain hormones and neurotransmitters). I’m also reasonably certain that more developed animals (such as dogs) are capable of higher feelings such as love and compassion. See e.g.: youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

And don’t even get me started on monkeys:
youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A
youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg&feature=related

So – I find these claims of human exceptionality greatly exaggerated.

Hard for me to see this extended to bacteria and viruses. Don’t they have a right to life? Or do only cute animals have it? Because it sounds like your argument rests on your own warm fuzzy feelings towards them as a basis for determining the place of animals in the natural order. But maybe you don’t believe in Genesis chapters 1-4 & 9.

By the way, I am mystified by your description of rats as being “relatively primitive”. I find bacteria just as complicated as any other living thing including rats.

 

[kama3]

Hard for me to see this extended to bacteria and viruses.

It does not extend. Bacteria do not have a central nervous system and do not exhibit any cognitive processes.

Don’t they have a right to life? Or do only cute animals have it?

Cuteness has nothing to do with it. Most people do not find rats cute

The consensus among bioethicists seems to be that the defining characteristic is cognitive abilities. For example, we have cephalopods, which, despite being invertebrates, are remarkably intelligent. So much, that bioethicists put them in one category with dogs etc. as far as experimental use is concerned:

In some countries, octopuses are on the list of experimental animals on which surgery may not be performed without anesthesia. In the UK, cephalopods such as octopuses are regarded as honorary vertebrates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and other cruelty to animals legislation, extending to them protections not normally afforded to invertebrates.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus

By the way, I am mystified by your description of rats as being “relatively primitive”. I find bacteria just as complicated as any other living thing including rats.

Errr… have a look at a biology textbook. Bacteria are extremely simple organisms.

The rat brain is relatively primitive compared to other mammals, such as dogs or pigs, not to mention monkeys and humans. Nevertheless, despite having a relatively primitive brain, rats are clearly capable of at least some some feelings we humans posess. Generally, it seems to be a pattern that the more advanced brain an animal has, the more capable of feelings it is.

Here’s some food for thought. Imagine that you have a chimp and an intellectually underdeveloped human – so that their intellectual capabilities are exactly the same. Should they be treated differently and why (not)?

 

[kama3]

But maybe you don’t believe in Genesis chapters 1-4 & 9.

Why should my ethical system be based on biological knowledge as of 1500 BC and not as of 2012 AD?

 

[Rainaldo]

It does not extend. Bacteria do not have a central nervous system and do not exhibit any cognitive processes. … The consensus among bioethicists seems to be that the defining characteristic is cognitive abilities. … Errr… have a look at a biology textbook. Bacteria are extremely simple organisms. … Here’s some food for thought. Imagine that you have a chimp and an intellectually underdeveloped human – so that their intellectual capabilities are exactly the same. Should they be treated differently and why (not)?

So something has a right to life if it exhibits behavior which we interpret as apprehension, fear, pain, love, compassion, and cognitive abilities, and has a central nervous system ? Now I know what you think of fetuses

Bacteria are not simple. Biology textbooks label them simple because evolutionary theory needs them to be simple so that they fit the theory, not because they are biochemically uncomplicated.

The human has human rights; the chimp does not, because it is not human; it is not in the image of God and its place in the natural order is that it was created for our good, not for its own sake like we were. Chimps do not sin; they cannot be baptized; they do not go to heaven. “Both their life and their death are subject to our use”, as Augustine says; Jesus came down from heaven for us men and for our salvation, not for animals or for their salvation; we are not obliged to love them as ourselves because they are not our neighbors, because they are not capable of the Beatific Vision.

 

[Rainaldo]

Why should my ethical system be based on biological knowledge as of 1500 BC and not as of 2012 AD?

Because your biological knowledge will be outdated in 2013, and you totally missed my point, because my citation had nothing to do with biological knowledge as of 1500 BC.

 

[kama3]

Bacteria are not simple. Biology textbooks label them simple because evolutionary theory needs them to be simple so that they fit the theory, not because they are biochemically uncomplicated.

Are you suggesting that human is less complicated than a bacterium? By what metric?

The human has human rights; the chimp does not, because it is not human;

What, exactly, makes human a human?

it is not in the image of God and its place in the natural order is that it was created for our good, not for its own sake like we were.

1. If so, why do chimps do just fine in the forest without any human around?
2. What can a human use a chimp for? (I know precisely one practical use of chimps, and it’s becoming increasingly illegal for ethical reasons).

Chimps do not sin;

Chimp bites, but feels remorse

[non-humans] are not capable of the Beatific Vision.

The deceased appear to have been intentionally buried, with each Neanderthal’s arms folded such that the hands were close to the head. Remains of other Neanderthals have been found in this position, suggesting that it held meaning.

news.discovery.com/history/neanderthal-burial-ground-afterlife-110420.html

Although Neanderthals had occasionally practiced burial of the dead, it was among the Cro-Magnon where evidence emerged of the elaborate burial, with hints of ritual and belief in an afterlife. At one burial site, the deceased was dressed in clothing on which more than three thousand ivory beads were sewn. Carved pendants, bracelets, and shell necklaces boggled the imagination. These elaborate internments are only the most dramatic example of many.

aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1015doser3.shtml

Ritual or symbolic behavior is generally taken as a sign of cognitive levels comparable to those of modern humans by palaeoanthropologists studying ancient human populations. The earliest signs of this are often taken as the use of red ochre by Neanderthals in Europe and Archaic modern humans in Africa, but some specialists regard this as slightly suspect, since red ochre does have non-ritual applications.

More generally accepted as evidence of such behavior is the use of shell beads as ornamentation, which appears at a number of sites in Africa and the Middle East from about 100 thousand years ago onwards.

In a paper published in the journal PLoS ONE on 5 March 2012, Eugène Morin of the Department of Anthropology at Trent University and Véronique Laroulandie of Université Bordeaux report the discover of the claws of raptors (birds of prey) apparently modified for use as jewelry at a number of Neanderthal burial sites in France and Italy, dating to between 90 000 and 40 000 years ago.

sciencythoughts.blogspot.com/2012/03/ritual-use-of-raptor-claws-by.html