Thesis: I should not have a pet

[Sair]

What emotional need does a pet fill that a human being can not fill?

Dogs and cats are incapable of dishonesty - in this, they are superior to human companions

 

[Jala]

In a nutshell, this a large part of the reason I abandoned Catholic faith.

Other animals ::are:: our brethren, if you take evolutionary biology seriously, as the Catholic church claims to do. Having dogs or cats or other animals as companions provides a great foil to the human potential for arrogance and self-absorbtion.

Besides, if it’s wrong to spend money on pets because you’re not spending it on the basic welfare of other humans, then it’s wrong to spend money on anything before spending it on basic human welfare, so any failure to donate to charity, or government spending on public works or sport or anything that isn’t saving lives is sinful, surely…

One of the many reasons I left, too.

Jala

 

[Marc_Anthony]

so what? Jesus and the apostles never commended the ceturian for keeping his wealth, at least not as far as. Just because it’s in the bible doesn’t mean it’s morraly commendable.

1. Nobody’s saying it’s commendable not to become a mendicant. They’re saying it’s not sinful.
2. He was never told he had to give up his wealth either.

Sair: This argument is very similar to another Peter Singer (who is IMO morally repulsive) made, and you can draw out the same conclusions he did as people on this thread are doing now.

If I remember correctly you didn’t say anything on the thread, but the irony is that at the time non-Christians were annoyed at me for thinking that the conclusions you drew from his argument were ridiculous!

Sometimes you can’t win.

In any case: The people on this thread have come up with several examples of Saints who have either had pets or specifically stated that we have a duty to be stewards to God’s creatures, which certainly falls under the domain of owning a pet and giving it a good life. Now it is up to you guys to give examples of Saints who believed owning pets was sinful.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Dogs and cats are incapable of dishonesty - in this, they are superior to human companions

I disagree with that-when my dog used to do something wrong he would certainly try and hide it from me.

 

[Scottgun]

Catechism to the rescue:

Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 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 *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 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 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.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Catechism to the rescue:

And notice that it references St. Francis…who owned pets.

They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Something else too: If this argument is true since we all own computers here, which we could be selling to the poor, we’re all going to Hell.

 

[maltmom]

I am a big animal lover. I have 3 dogs and 2 cats. I may be adopting a deaf Great Dane. I don’t buy dogs, I adopt them. My Maltipoo does not go to the groomer weekly, her nails are not painted. By day I’m a dentist who will never be financially well off. I put the needs of my patients over money. My reward is receiving a text from a patient who came in with a tooth hurting and is no longer in pain. God gave me the gift of compassion and the knowledge to help those in my community. That being said, my pets are my joy at home. They do not take the place of human contact. They keep me company, they make me laugh. They are a gift from God to me. If I plan on taking the Maltipoo in to be groomed and I see someone who is hungry I’d spend the money on food that person. I’d bathe my dog myself and wait until I can bring her in to be clipped.

It’s a balancing act. People always come first.

 

[zro_x]

Other animals ::are:: our brethren, if you take evolutionary biology seriously, as the Catholic church claims to do.

That depends on what you mean by brethren. If you mean that animals are probably distantly related to us, then you may be right. However, man has an immortal soul, which animals do not have. Thus, they are not brethren in the biblical sense

 

[frizzgrig]

Hi everybody,
Given the moral imperative to Love God in our bretheren, how can a Catholic consider having a pet, or pursue any kind of career in the world of pets, or animal entertainment (like circus, etc…)?
Wouldn’t any dollar spent on a pet be a dollar lost on a bretheren that needs it?

Thank you for considering this.

Any opposing views with appropriate refutations are welcomed.

By this logic, purchasing anything that goes beyond the most essential necessity (or overpaying for something) would be wrong because that money could be used for the benefit of someone else who needs it.

Some might see this as a commendable act, but the Church does not ask us to live our lives in complete poverty. There is absolutely nothing wrong with becoming successful and even monetarily wealthy provided the money is not the object of your life but rather something that God blessed you with along the way.

Caring for pets are a way to teach children how to care for creation, and be responsible. They also provide companionship when people can not or will not.

Your thesis may be correct - you should not have a pet. It may be correct, not for the reason you give, but simply because you should not have a pet.

 

[zro_x]

1. Nobody’s saying it’s commendable not to become a mendicant. They’re saying it’s not sinful.

perhaps I could have been more clear: something can be sinful and still be in the bible

1. He was never told he had to give up his wealth either.

Throughout the bible (both old and new testaments), slavery is referred to without defining slavery as an evil action. The ancient isrealites were never cammanded to give up their slaves, despite the fact that slavery is evil. The case of the centurion may be similar.

Now it is up to you guys to give examples of Saints who believed owning pets was sinful.

It would probably help my case if I could, but I don’t really need to. Saints, like the rest of us, were flawed human beings while on this earth, and owning a pet is not exactly the biggest possible sin.

Something else too: If this argument is true since we all own computers here, which we could be selling to the poor, we’re all going to Hell.

That is a gross exaggeration. participating in a few luxuries is probably only minimally sinful. I seriously doubt that we’ll go to Hell if we die with that particular sin on our conscsience.

They may be domesticated to help man in his work** and leisure**.

This is the most compelling argument of the bunch. It is interesting that the catichism indirectly okays leisure…

 

[frizzgrig]

It is interesting that the catichism indirectly okays leisure…

Why do you find this surprising? Even God rested after His labors.

 

[Jala]

If you have any reservations whatsoever about having a pet, then you probably shouldn’t. Just like children, they require a lot of time, money, training, sleepless nights, and patience. You’re either ready for it or you’re not.

Jala

 

[Marc_Anthony]

perhaps I could have been more clear: something can be sinful and still be in the bible

No, I knew that’s what you were saying.

Throughout the bible (both old and new testaments), slavery is referred to without defining slavery as an evil action. The ancient isrealites were never cammanded to give up their slaves, despite the fact that slavery is evil. The case of the centurion may be similar.

Slavery isn’t intrinsically evil in the biblical sense; in modern usage it obviously is. This is a lame response.

It would probably help my case if I could, but I don’t really need to. Saints, like the rest of us, were flawed human beings while on this earth, and owning a pet is not exactly the biggest possible sin.

So, your position has no backing among the Saints, and ours does. Excellent.

That is a gross exaggeration. participating in a few luxuries is probably only minimally sinful. I seriously doubt that we’ll go to Hell if we die with that particular sin on our conscsience.

Since it’s never ever been mentioned as a sin and isn’t intrinsically evil, you are correct.

This is the most compelling argument of the bunch. It is interesting that the catichism indirectly okays leisure…

That was pretty direct.

 

[Neildown]

That is a gross exaggeration. participating in a few luxuries is probably only minimally sinful. I seriously doubt that we’ll go to Hell if we die with that particular sin on our conscsience.

In this post you basically appear to be saying that pleasure in and of itself is immoral - just on different levels. Jesus said we shouldn’t make pleasure the goal of our lives, but He never said that luxury, in and of itself, is wrong. If that were so, it would be a sin for a legally-married couple to have relations… That being said, the RCC would have to be functioning on hypocrisy whilst wedding a man and woman so that they might raise children…

 

[maltmom]

However, man has an immortal soul, which animals do not have.

I’m not being sarcastic when I ask this. How do we know that animals do not have souls? We are born with original sin. Animals did not sin against God.

 

[Neildown]

I’m not being sarcastic when I ask this. How do we know that animals do not have souls? We are born with original sin. Animals did not sin against God.

Animals may or may not have souls.Regardless, they do not have souls in the capacity of humans, which is all that really matters.

 

[zro_x]

In this post you basically appear to be saying that pleasure in and of itself is immoral - just on different levels.

not all pleasure. Certain pleasures, such as the pleasure of helping others, are not immoral.

Jesus said we shouldn’t make pleasure the goal of our lives, but He never said that luxury, in and of itself, is wrong.

luxury and pleasure, in and of themselves, are not immoral or wrong. Most pleasures and probably all luxuries are immoral only because now that the fall has occured, It is mankind’s mission to help his fellow man as much as possible. luxury and pleasure often distract us from this duty, and anything less than our best is not enough.

If that were so, it would be a sin for a legally-married couple to have relations…

precicely! (Well, not exactly. My view is that after the fall, some people became unable to restrain their urges, and only these people are called to marriage by God. Marriage in this sense would not be a sin, because the people in a marriage approved by God can not be held responsible for their condition. ) Look up my posts in the thread “Is Lust a Sin?” Currently near the top of the first page. Also see Corinthians 7:8-9, 32-34, and 38.

 

[zro_x]

I’m not being sarcastic when I ask this. How do we know that animals do not have souls? We are born with original sin. Animals did not sin against God.

As Neildown and many posters on the “church stance on animal intelligence” thread (also currently near the top of the first page) mentioned, animals do have souls, just not immortal ones. I think, though I am not absolutely certain, that this is the official church stance on the matter. We should respect the Church’s teaching on subjects of morallity,because Jesus gave her that authority. The Bible of course, is also an important authority. That’s why the quote from the chatechism and frizzgrig…

Why do you find this surprising? Even God rested after His labors.

…have thrown me for a bit of a loop.

 

[Sair]

That depends on what you mean by brethren. If you mean that animals are probably distantly related to us, then you may be right. However, man has an immortal soul, which animals do not have. Thus, they are not brethren in the biblical sense

This is the theology, perhaps, but there isn’t a shred of evidence for anything like an immortal soul. By contrast, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the fact that we are indeed related to every other animal on earth, some more distantly than others.