The Slaughtering of Animals in Factories. Moral dilemmas in the modern world

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
seeker63:
If I thought for one second that the Catholic Church was so hard-hearted and legalistic as to officially declare that there was no way innocent animals were allowed in heaven, then I would immediately renounce my Catholic faith for one more in line with mercy, kindness, and love.

But I know that it’ll never happen. I’m more confident of some things held by faith than I am in man’s arrogant “answers.”

I will say that had I encountered the posturing, preening, snotty side of the Church before I converted, I might not have ever done so.
Click to expand...
Do I understand this correctly - you would not have converted if ou knew the Church teachings on animals?
 
Had I thought (and I do not) that the Catholic conception of God was actually so hard-hearted, nit-picky, legalistic, and generally obnoxious, no, I would not have converted and would’ve found a religion more compatable with love and mercy. This isn’t just a question of does the Church value all of God’s creation or not, but a whole underlying spirit and operating philosophy.
 
Has anyone else noticed how, subtly or otherwise, anyone who disgrees with a few of the bullies on this thread they are painted as hippies, New Agers, tree-huggers, liberals, and radical environmentalists, and that once so labelled, their arguments are dismissed as those of ignorant children?
 
I do not regard the sort of hateful, capricious God as some here describe as worthy of either my time or my worship. Fortunately, I don’t think that sort of God exists.
 
40.png
seeker63:
Had I thought (and I do not) that the Catholic conception of God was actually so hard-hearted, nit-picky, legalistic, and generally obnoxious, no, I would not have converted and would’ve found a religion more compatable with love and mercy. This isn’t just a question of does the Church value all of God’s creation or not, but a whole underlying spirit and operating philosophy.
Click to expand...
I really think you are looking at this entirely wrong. Animals were created good, for the benefit of man. That is loving. God commands us to be good stewards of all creation, for it is good.

I believe it is only lately as more people adopted pets, that this view of animals in heaven came about. It is really about an emotional attachment to an animal.

Now I can get attached to my car and my possesions, but I know they aren’t going with me when I die. I won’t want them or need them for they are “earthly”. So too with animals. We certainly won’t need them and in the beatific vision we will be focused entirely on God, not animals. Try to understand what the beatific vision will be like and I think it will help put this in perspective.

From the CCC:

Respect for the integrity of creation

[2415](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2415.htm’)😉 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

[2416](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2416.htm’)😉 *Animals *are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

[2417](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2417.htm’)😉 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](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2418.htm’)😉 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.
 
I am not speaking specifically of pets, but of all wildlife and nature. Why are some people so insistent that Heaven will have a specific look and topography that will specifically exclude aspects of God’s creation that He pronounced as good?

There will be a New Heaven** and** a New Earth with a river running through it, the Tree of Life, and so forth. Why must it only consist of humans, angels, and divine beings? Will there be nothing other than marble and pearly gates? I don’t see why the idea of a recreated nature is such an irritating concept to some.

No, I don’t expect to see man-made things like cars, but I do hope there’s more to do than strumming harps and singing. I expect it will be fascinating.

Have people changed their attitudes since they started having pets? Yes, gradually. In the Middle Ages, a period some regard as the high-water mark of civilized thought, people regarded cats as being possessed by demons, and regularly killed and tortured them. But for most, intellectual inquiry, understanding, and discussion has progressed and evolved, not remained static.

I would like to think that in some ways we aren’t as backward as we were 500 or 1000 years ago.

As civilization developed and people grew further and further from barbarism, they began to bond with certain animals, and realize that yes, maybe there was something more to these creatures than a dumb object to beat with a stick or kick through a hedge, that there was an aspect of God’s creation we had been ignoring all these centuries, though it had been staring us in the face.

And no, you don’t have to be a hippie or a tree-hugger or liberal to stand, say, at the rim of the Grand Canyon and see that creation declares the glory of God.
 
Have I said anything to the contrary of any of these positions of the CCC?
 
I just think Heaven will be less sterile and clinical and more of a picture of the glory and sweep of God’s creation.
 
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.

***One of the problems of our times is that our poliics are so polarized. One side refuses to listen to anything the other says. You either accept a platform in totto or are ignored totally.This is certainly the case with experimentation on animals.

The Far Right so derides anyone who speaks out against animal experimentation that they tend to regard all experimentation as permissable and even desirable. There are cases where, sad to say, animal experimentation is the only way to reach certain medical conclusions.

On the other hand, there is no reason we should experiment on animals just because it’s cheaper or easier, if it serves no useful medical purpose, if the same research can be performed on computer models or in any other way not involving living creatures, and certainly experimentation is despicable when used for frivolous purposes as the development of cosmetics.
 
40.png
seeker63:
I am not speaking specifically of pets, but of all wildlife and nature. Why are some people so insistent that Heaven will have a specific look and topography that will specifically exclude aspects of God’s creation that He pronounced as good?

There will be a New Heaven** and** a New Earth with a river running through it, the Tree of Life, and so forth. Why must it only consist of humans, angels, and divine beings? Will there be nothing other than marble and pearly gates? I don’t see why the idea of a recreated nature is such an irritating concept to some.

No, I don’t expect to see man-made things like cars, but I do hope there’s more to do than strumming harps and singing. I expect it will be fascinating.

Have people changed their attitudes since they started having pets? Yes, gradually. In the Middle Ages, a period some regard as the high-water mark of civilized thought, people regarded cats as being possessed by demons, and regularly killed and tortured them. But for most, intellectual inquiry, understanding, and discussion has progressed and evolved, not remained static.

I would like to think that in some ways we aren’t as backward as we were 500 or 1000 years ago.

As civilization developed and people grew further and further from barbarism, they began to bond with certain animals, and realize that yes, maybe there was something more to these creatures than a dumb object to beat with a stick or kick through a hedge, that there was an aspect of God’s creation we had been ignoring all these centuries, though it had been staring us in the face.

And no, you don’t have to be a hippie or a tree-hugger or liberal to stand, say, at the rim of the Grand Canyon and see that creation declares the glory of God.
Click to expand...
I think what these dialogues always come down to is where in the priority list shuld pets fall. The American family consists of 2.1 kids and a dog. Do we think this is God’s idea of a family? Is it cosistent with Catholic teaching. How does it harmonize with the Cathechism -

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.

**I believe many Americans have elevated pets above humans and family size judging by the amount of money spent on their keep. That is the root of my issue.
 
You think people utilize contraception because they cannot afford to maintain a pet and an extra child? I’ve never heard that before.

I’ve never made much money, but have also never considered having a pet that great an expense.

Are Catholics, by and large, poorer than Protestants? I sure get the impression from reading some of the posts on this board that many Catholics have little money.

The Church is in favor of NFP, but it seems many Catholics on this board are trying to set records for how many children they can have, regardless of whether they can afford them. I think you can be open to life without driving yourself to the poor house in the process. (I’m sure I’ll hear a lot of garbage over that.)

But we must remember that Catholics are the only ones who have a moral problem with contraception, and even, from what I hear, most nominal, cafeteria Catholics are opposed to the Church’s teachings on contraception anyway. The Protestants and everybody else don’t care about contraception one way or the other. It is a non-issue to them. But I’ve never heard of any of them deciding against having a kid because they already had a pet.

And I think pet ownership is an essential part of a happy childhood.

I will say, though, that on average, the animals I have known have been a better lot than the humans I’ve known. They have on the whole been a lot more likeable and less despicable. And I have never been disgusted by the behavior of animals–that’s a lot more than I can say for the human race.
 
40.png
seeker63:
But we must remember that Catholics are the only ones who have a moral problem with contraception, and even, from what I hear, most nominal, cafeteria Catholics are opposed to the Church’s teachings on contraception anyway. The Protestants and everybody else don’t care about contraception one way or the other. It is a non-issue to them. But I’ve never heard of any of them deciding against having a kid because they already had a pet.
Click to expand...
Contraception is sinful, whether one is Catholic or not. The degree of culpability may vary, but it is still sinful. It was not until 1930, or so, that Protestants decided they will not follow the moral law regarding contraception.
 
I know that and you know that, but Protestants don’t. The morality of it doesn’t figure into their family planning because they don’t regard it as sinful. People who don’t think of contraception as a moral issue are not going to care one way or the other.

I am a convert, and have had to work at accepting and developing a feeling of guilt and sin about certain Catholic beliefs and prohibitions that were not a problem when I was a Protestant.
 
40.png
seeker63:
You think people utilize contraception because they cannot afford to maintain a pet and an extra child? I’ve never heard that before.

I’ve never made much money, but have also never considered having a pet that great an expense.

Are Catholics, by and large, poorer than Protestants? I sure get the impression from reading some of the posts on this board that many Catholics have little money.

The Church is in favor of NFP, but it seems many Catholics on this board are trying to set records for how many children they can have, regardless of whether they can afford them. I think you can be open to life without driving yourself to the poor house in the process. (I’m sure I’ll hear a lot of garbage over that.)

But we must remember that Catholics are the only ones who have a moral problem with contraception, and even, from what I hear, most nominal, cafeteria Catholics are opposed to the Church’s teachings on contraception anyway. The Protestants and everybody else don’t care about contraception one way or the other. It is a non-issue to them. But I’ve never heard of any of them deciding against having a kid because they already had a pet.

And I think pet ownership is an essential part of a happy childhood.

I will say, though, that on average, the animals I have known have been a better lot than the humans I’ve known. They have on the whole been a lot more likeable and less despicable. And I have never been disgusted by the behavior of animals–that’s a lot more than I can say for the human race.
Click to expand...
No I didn’t expressly say that. But it can be a contributing factor, as well as material pursuits and selfishness. You cannot deny that we are constantly being bombarded through the media about the high cost of children and you better be saving for their college when they are born as well as population control issues. Our own peers will challenge us as to the number of children we have (as evidences on other threads).

I know people who take their pets for pedicures, and grooming. The pet gets hurt and off to the vet they go. Vets are not cheap. How about pet supplies chains. There were none 30 or 40 years ago. Big money is being spent on pets.

There are now pet restaurants where you can take your pooch for a nice intimate dinner.

The perfect family is portayed on TV and in commercials as being 2 kids and a dog. They continually hammer this at you.

Under normal breast feeding and cycles (no contracetion) the average couple will have between 4 and 12 children. That it seems is how God set it up. Practicing NFP for true conscience reasons it will be less.
 
I know that and you know that, but Protestants don’t. The morality of it doesn’t figure into their family planning because they don’t regard it as sinful. People who don’t think of contraception as a moral issue are not going to care one way or the other.

I am a convert, and have had to work at accepting and developing a feeling of guilt and sin about certain Catholic beliefs and prohibitions that were not a problem when I was a Protestant.
 
Read this book: “A Travel Guide to Heaven” by Anthony DeStefano.
 
40.png
seeker63:
I know that and you know that, but Protestants don’t. The morality of it doesn’t figure into their family planning because they don’t regard it as sinful. People who don’t think of contraception as a moral issue are not going to care one way or the other.

I am a convert, and have had to work at accepting and developing a feeling of guilt and sin about certain Catholic beliefs and prohibitions that were not a problem when I was a Protestant.
Click to expand...
They did until 1930. This is a recent development.
 
First you say this:
40.png
seeker63:
Had I thought (and I do not) that the Catholic conception of God was actually so hard-hearted, nit-picky, legalistic, and generally obnoxious, no, I would not have converted and would’ve found a religion more compatable with love and mercy. This isn’t just a question of does the Church value all of God’s creation or not, but a whole underlying spirit and operating philosophy
Click to expand...
Then you say this:
40.png
seeker63:
Has anyone else noticed how, subtly or otherwise, anyone who disgrees with a few of the bullies on this thread they are painted as hippies, New Agers, tree-huggers, liberals, and radical environmentalists, and that once so labelled, their arguments are dismissed as those of ignorant children?
Click to expand...
Are you projecting?
 
Dear friends

Well hasn’t this thread spiralled out of control and love of neighbour!

I go away from this forum for one whole day and take a trip to the zoo with my daughter and family to come back to see people argue and squabble worse than monkeys!:rotfl:

There is one teaching of St Paul that I set great store by, that those who preach and teach much are not only held by what they teach but also held to a higher degree for their intervention in others souls. If you cannot be 100% sure of the facts and you cannot on a THEORY, then I would simply say that you don’t think IN YOUR OPINION based on a THEORY that animals go to heaven, but you do not KNOW for sure and therefore prudence would dictate that we are kind and loving to animals. Just as I have said that I do not know, but I am not closed minded in the possibility that animals may be re-created to make a share in salvation purely because God created them and loves them to a degree proclaiming their good.

I don’t know why a person should need to be instructed to be kind to animals, but then again we needed to be instructed to be kind to each other, so it’s no surprise really.

I hope this thread can continue in kindness and love to each other, if it can’t then I don’t even see the point in debating kindness to animals!

Now I need to go and cut out new insoles for my old shoes.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top