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

[Pug]

Springbreeze and Fox,

Thanks for the kind words!

 

[stanley123]

Pug:

I’ve been medically ordered on a low fiber diet. I have increased my meat intake as a result…

Sorry to hear about your medical condition. When i was recommending a vegetarian diet, I was talking to people who have an objection to the pain inflicted on animals in the slaughterhouses, and to those who had no medical problems with such a diet. i was not talking about people with medical conditions and who had to eat meat becasue of some medical condition. Obviously, this is a different situation entirely.
Let me make an analogy. Generally, we are opposed to stealing and looting. But, if we are in a dire near death situation, such as a terrible hurricane which has destroyed vast amounts of property and has left people starving and without food and water, I would think that the right to life for these poor people, would take precedence over the property rights of a Wal-Mart store, which is presently wrecked and beyond repair anyway, but has inside of it bottles of water which could save people’s lives. I am not advocating looting anything else, except for food and drink which would be used to save people’s lives in these dire circumstances, and on the basis that later on, if it were possible, restitution would be made to the rightful owner.

 

[Ella]

Hmmm. well, what’s the Vatican said on this subject?

“ncrlc.com”
For a More Just Relationship with Animals
by Marie Hendrickx
L’Osservertore Romano
December 2000

                    *{Marie Hendrickx is a member of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Holy See.}*

There is a suffering that borders on mystery, the mystery of the presence of evil in the world. This suffering is inevitable. There is another kind that belongs to the constitution of creation itself, which can be controlled. In the former case it was assumed by Christ crucified and he transformed it, making it, for him and for those who “fol-low” him the way that leads to life in God. In the latter case, man is asked not to cause it without good reason and to stop it whenever possible. This duty applies to every individual and to others with whom the individual is in contact. Jesus’ preaching and the apostolic writings are full of instruc-tions of this kind. It is enough to cite the “golden rule” proposed by Jesus, which sums up the law and the prophets: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.” (Mt 7:12; cf. Lk 6:31; Rom 13:8-10).

Does anything similar apply to the animal world? More precisely are we morally bound to do everything possi-ble to avoid causing animals suffer-ing? One current of thought, which can be called “egalitarian” {for example, that of Peter Singer), refuses to admit, that man has any rights over other living beings. According to this theory, whenever someone is faced with two conflicting interests, that of the best “endowed” living being should prevail, that is, the one more highly sensitive to and conscious of pain. From this standpoint, an adult person would certainly take precedence over an animal, but an animal would prevail over any human being in a state of “deficiency”: comatose, mentally handicapped, a fetus whose ability to feel pain has not yet developed, etc. According to this "egalitarian logic, an animal’s vital interest would take precedence over any sec-ondary interest of a human being.

                    Christian thought goes in a very different direction. Its center is Christ and, in him, man.

Strangely, it is pre-cisely because of this dignity attribut-ed to man that cer-tain ecologists ac-cuse Christianity of not considering the natural environment except as a context for human activity. Animals in particular seem to be reduced to the category of provisions. Man can draw upon them according to his needs; he can use or even abuse them at will, as mere tools to which he has no obligations, since they themselves have no rights. The Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to confirm this view of things. “Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present and future humanity.” (n.2415), and “God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.” (n.2417).

This poses the following problems: does the right to use animals for food imply the right to raise chick-ens in tiny cages where they live in a space smaller than a notebook? Or calves in com-partments where they can never move about or see the light? Or to keep sows pinned by iron rings in a feeding position to allow a series of piglets to suck milk constantly and thus grow faster? Does the right to use animals for clothing mean letting those with valuable pelts slowly die of hunger, thirst, cold or hemorrhage in traps?

Does the right to use animals for our leisure mean the right to stab bulls with bandilleras after tormenting them at length? Does it mean letting horses be disemboweled? Does it mean throwing cats or goats from the top of bell towers?

 

[Ella]

• continued-

Before attempting to answer these questions, we should immediately note that the following sentence from the Catechism, which provoked violent protests to the point that the Catholic position was accused of supporting vivisection, was altered between the first edition and the official, typical edition. In fact, where the 1992 text said “Medical and scientific experimentation on animals if it remains within reasonable limits, is a morally acceptable practice since it contributes to caring for or saving human lives.” (2417) It now reads: Medical and sci-entific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives." What is the difference? Merely in the fact that the “since” has been replaced with an “if”, that is, on condition that…Credit is no longer given a priori to medical and scientific experimentation on animals “to care for or to save human lives” and thus to be morally acceptable practices. Before experiments can be legitimately carried out, their usefulness must be shown.

Before proceeding, we point out that these reactions to the Catechism were only partly justified, because the later version is only meant to clarify the meaning of the earlier edition. The admission a priori that experimentation on animals is not morally licit except for its usefulness to man presupposes that a prior effort of discernment has been made to consider it as such. It can therefore be said with perfect logic that the Catechism has also clearly indicated the criteria for a sound and sensible reflection on how one should treat animals: “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” (n.2418)

In what does human dignity consist? Because man is superior to animals? Genesis says that the human species alone was created in the “image” and likeness" of God (cf. Gn 1:26). The Church’s faith has often identified this “image” with reason, the specifically human dimension of intellect, which derives from a special participation in the divine intellect (cf. e.g. Gaudium et spes, n. 15). Animals certainly have an innate ability which enables them to find ingenious solutions in difficult practical situations, to direct their
means to the ends which instinct has given to them. But they cannot go beyond themselves in order to understand an object as such or their life as a whole, in a word, they cannot "intuslegere,"i.e., read into beings and things.

Likewise the human will participates in a specific way in God’s will. It bears in itself the desire above all to find its fulfillment in him. In its origin it is fundamentally oriented to the good. But since it is sustained by an intellect which can go beyond itself, it is free, that is, capable of embracing the desire that grounds it or of renouncing it, to let itself be fascinated by lesser, more fleeting, selfish or partial goods, and seeking immediate satisfaction, without considering the consequences for the future or for others. This is the tragedy of sin.

To have (at least virtually) the ability to perceive oneself and to act as an “I” to a “you” is specific to human beings. In his Son, God made man a person, hence his interlocutor, even if we do not know how the Lord carries on this relationship with the weaker and more disabled among us. From this undeniable truth we can nevertheless be certain that somewhere God leaves room for the free response of each person. (cf. For an analogous case, Gaudium et spes, n.22)

If our dignity is to be like God, it follows that the more we behave like God, the more we are ourselves. We can and must thank God for the beauty of a kid, a cat or a dog, as we do for the beauty of the sun, the moon, and the rain. (cf. Canticle of the Creatures). But that is not all. The Little Flowers of St. Francis also recount the episode of the wolf of Gubbio. This ferocious beast terrorized the region. The inhabitants asked Francis to intervene and he made an agreement with the animal; the farmers would feed it and, in return, it would no longer prey on their livestock. “And while Francis stretched out his hand to receive his pledge, the wolf raised its right forepaw and delicately placed it in his hand.”"(The Little Flowers, chap.21)

 

[Ella]

-continued -

This shows that holiness, the reconciliation of man with God, has a sort of magnetic force that attracts creation in a movement of overall reconciliation. This is clearly suggested by Holy Scripture. Does not the prophet Isaiah describe messianic times in these terms: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them…the sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp … for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Is. 11:6-9).

The “knowl-edge of the Lord”: the Hebrew word suggests something carnal, like a communion of life; knowing the Lord means becoming in some way consubstantial with him. It also means being perfectly reconciled with creation. The restored harmony with the Creator thanks to the messianic child will be expressed in a new harmony with cre-ation, to which the animal world also belongs. At the time of our definitive encounter with the Beloved, our hearts will be like his, so that all our past af-fections, however humble they may be, will find their place, having been purified, made right and ordered to him. For God, nothing human can be lost, not even the simple ties we have formed with the animal creatures which filled, for example, our moments of loneliness.

If this is the case, we must repeat with the Catechism that man is not justified in “causing animals to suffer needlessly”. He should therefore re-frain from doing so if he can avoid it, or if there are no serious reasons for doing so. The right to feed one’s family or large populations can certainly justify it, but not the profit motive alone. Moreover, to take pleasure in the suffering of a living creature is al-ways unhealthy.

Physical suffering is the tangible sign of an attack on life; life is expressed as the biological support of relations. Now even should this seem somewhat cryptic, two categories of relationships can be distinguished: those we have with people and those we have with non-personal beings. A being with whom we can relate to as an end is a human or divine person.

An attack on life, suffering inflicted on the human being who is an end in himself, is not morally justifiable unless it enables the one suffering it (and, possibly others as well) to live better, to intensify and improve his human relations, to draw nearer to God. In the case of animals, suffering cannot be legitimately inflicted except under similar conditions.

 

[Ella]

• continued-

The dynamic of relations in the world has been corrupted by sin. In his struggle with sin, the Christian will tend to restore to them the sense of grace, of reasonable love for all living beings. This observation can help to clarify the problem of entertainment involving violence to animals. These shows are often a celebration of colour and movement, and it is understandable that crowds are fascinated by the sight of human intelligence triumphing over unleashed brute force. We can also understand that a sense of solidarity can result from them, of common feeling which, they think, justifies the sacrifice of the animal and the risk to man. But is this true solidarity? Do they really bring people together? Is there truly a collective purification of aggression in it? If the theory of “catharsis” were true, a society would be all the more peaceful the more brutal were its shows. Now we all know that the opposite is true. If this is so, every means must be used to achieve what represents the value of this entertainment without it being at the cost of the animal or the cause of excessive risks to man.

If holiness leads to reconciliation with nature, then it is probable that reconciliation with nature, properly understood, fosters in turn better relations with God. Or, if the right relationship with God makes people just to others and kind to animals, then kindness to animals could in turn reawaken sentiments of admiration and praise in the human heart for the great work of the Creator of the universe.

 

[romano]

HelpingHands:

It’s actually in our self interest to treat animals humanely. . . .

**Yes indeed! Very much so! And for a reason that escapes most. The point is that, once society gets into the habit of treating animals inhumanely (and factory farming is a prime example of this), it won’t be long before it starts treating human beings inhumanely.

Witness the recent events in New Orleans. At least some of the survivors who were interviewed on TV complained bitterly that they had been treated like dogs, treated as if they were animals by the authorities.

It’s sort of like what happens when you toss a pebble in a pool. The ripples spread outward in widening circles. And sooner or later those ripples of inhumanity will, I’m sorry to say, reach all of us.

You don’t think so? Neither did the ‘good folks’ of New Orleans . . . .**

 

[seeker63]

The Nazis started out euthanizing the handicapped, the retarded, anyone they regarded as superfluous or a burden on society, anyone who they deemed should be “put out of their misery.” It was only a matter of time before the net got wider.

And before anyone jumps on me for the comparison, I’m saying that once you let down your moral standards past a certain line, it becomes much, much easier to go even further down. Once certain lives have no value, before long no lives have value.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes indeed! Very much so! And for a reason that escapes most. The point is that, once society gets into the habit of treating animals inhumanely (and factory farming is a prime example of this), it won’t be long before it starts treating human beings inhumanely.

Witness the recent events in New Orleans. At least some of the survivors who were interviewed on TV complained bitterly that they had been treated like dogs, treated as if they were animals by the authorities.

**It’s sort of like what happens when you toss a pebble in a pool. The ripples spread outward in widening circles. And sooner or later those ripples of inhumanity will, I’m sorry to say, reach all of us. **

You don’t think so? Neither did the ‘good folks’ of New Orleans . . . .

What frustrated,desperate people say is one thing, reality is another. They aren’t being treated like animals – the city government failed, and that’s the link on which state and federal aid depends. It has taken time to reestablish some kind of order in a massive disaster area.

But to say the whole nation isn’t heart-and-soul committed to helping those people is not only wrong, but a slur against the whole nation.

 

[stanley123]

-continued -

If this is the case, we must repeat with the Catechism that man is not justified in “causing animals to suffer needlessly”…

Would you say that Cathoics have a grave obligation to educate themselves about what goes on in the slaughterhouses? If so, how come I have never heard a sermon on slaughterhouses? Has anyone ever heard a sermon on the pain inflicted on animals in the slaughterhouses?
My advice remains to eat as many vegetables as possible (within your medical condition). Also, dairy products do not generally inflict pain on animals, do they? Also (if it is possible and if you really need to eat meat), I think it is preferred to raise the animals yourselves (or by someone you are aquainted with) and to slaughter them as humanely as possible.
But I don;t know how much of a responsiblity we have here. Really, I never heard anyone from the Church say that we had an obligation to do this?
For example, I could be wrong on this, but I don;t think it is the position or teaching of the RCC, that it would be a sin to eat a MacDonald hamburger, even though these hamburgers have been obtained from cows slaughtered with pain?
Still, though, it seems like it just makes sense that we should avoid causing needless pain to animals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

 

[Ella]

“Would you say that Cathoics have a grave obligation to educate themselves about what goes on in the slaughterhouses? If so, how come I have never heard a sermon on slaughterhouses? Has anyone ever heard a sermon on the pain inflicted on animals in the slaughterhouses?”

That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer.

It seems that some people on here seem determined to use any argument they can muster in order to justify being cruel to animals, including the bizarre premise that animals cannot feel pain. (???), or are not conscious. (???). So I thought posting a document from a theologian who is a **member of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Holy See **might provide some context for the statement that is is NOT moral to be needlessly cruel to animals.

It makes me think of something I saw when I was little. I saw this gang of boys using frogs as the ‘baseballs’ for their game. Would I want my kid to do something cruel like that? They also bragged about killing cats and kittens - I don’t want to go into details about how. Is this moral behavior? Are these kids being good Christians?

 

[stanley123]

I would say it is certainly very wrong to be cruel to animals for the sake of cruelty and for getting fun out of this cruelty.
However, like I said, I don’t know of any Catholic teaching which would indicate that eating a hamburger (from a slaughterhouse where the animals suffer pain) is a sin. It might be ignorance on my part, but I haven’t heard about it, and I haven’t heard any sermons on this point.

 

[seeker63]

Stanley, for what it’s worth, I haven’t heard any sermons in Catholic churches about sin or any tough, potentially unsettling topics. Most of them seem designed not to ruffle the feathers of the congregation too much.

 

[stanley123]

Ella:

I saw this gang of boys using frogs as the ‘baseballs’ for their game. Would I want my kid to do something cruel like that? They also bragged about killing cats and kittens - I don’t want to go into details about how. Is this moral behavior? Are these kids being good Christians?

I would say no, like I did in the previous post, but your question brings up another point - the ethics of hunting for sport. For example, I think that I read somewhere that some very famous people, including ones who consider themselves to be good born again Christians, go duck hunting for sport. They don;t actually eat the ducks that they kill. But they shoot them and the ducks fall to the ground and writhe in hideous and awful pain as they die. I don't know what the Catholic teaching is on this, but still, I haven't heard any sermons on the ethics of duck hunting for sport - one way or the other? Is duck hunting for sport a sin or not? Assuming that you have no intention of eating the duck. It does seem to be cruel to the duck.

 

[stanley123]

seeker63:

Stanley, for what it’s worth, I haven’t heard any sermons in Catholic churches about sin or any tough, potentially unsettling topics.

What do you think that this would mean, in terms of the Church fulfilling its mission to teach all nations?

 

[Pug]

I have never seen a Church condemnation of hunting for sport. Hunting (just) for sport and comradere is no modern novelty. The only moral theology text I own indicates that it can be acceptable to hunt for sport.

Certainly if no human good is being served, they ought not do it. It would be offensive (to me) to use animals as a target to test if your scope is correctly aligned when many inanimate objects will do nicely, or to shoot animals merely to destroy or assert your power. Surely that would be a misuse of God’s creation.

 

[seeker63]

I’m not sure what you’re asking, Stanley. Yes, Priests ought to deliver more useful, challengin, edifying sermons that will help us grow in the faith. Most of those I’ve heard have tended towards the namby-pamby.

 

[stanley123]

Pug:

I have never seen a Church condemnation of hunting for sport. The only moral theology text I own indicates that it can be acceptable to hunt for sport.
…
Certainly if no human good is being served, they ought not do it…

Well, then does that indicate that something is wrong? First, we seem to agree that it is wrong to needlessly inflict pain on an innocent animal. But now, on further reflection, no one has ever seen any official Catholic condemnation of hunting for sport? But what is this - hunting for sport? The hunter shoots down a duck from the sky and the duck falls, writhing with horrific pain and terrible suffering from his bullet wounds. There is no intention of eating the duck for food - there is only the intention of killing this duck to show off what a great hunter you are and to show off what a great aim you have. Why would a book on moral theology say that this is OK? Is the book wrong and was the teaching wrong - or is the book on moral theology right and it means that it is OK to cause this terrible pain and suffering to innocent animals to show off for sport and that there is nothing wrong with it, because the book on moral theology says so?

 

[vern_humphrey]

stanley123:

The hunter shoots down a duck from the sky and the duck falls, writhing with horrific pain and terrible suffering from his bullet wounds.

You’ve never been duck hunting, have you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

stanley123:

There is no intention of eating the duck for food - there is only the intention of killing this duck to show off what a great hunter you are

I guess all the duck hunters I know have been doing it wrong, then – we always eat what we kill.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

stanley123:

and to show off what a great aim you have.

Aim? You aim a shotgun?

stanley123:

Why would a book on moral theology say that this is OK? Is the book wrong and was the teaching wrong - or is the book on moral theology right and it means that it is OK to cause this terrible pain and suffering to innocent animals to show off for sport and that there is nothing wrong with it, because the book on moral theology says so?

The duck hunting in your imagination, and the real duck hunting in the Delta aren’t exactly the same thing.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Ella]

Well, Vern, what do you think about using frogs as baseballs for a game, or killing kittens for fun? Is this moral? Or is it sin?

If it’s not moral, then why not?