Thesis: I should not have a pet

[Marc_Anthony]

I would respond to these 2 reasons that we may have leisure and respect towards animals without buying one for ourselves alone.
As for the story of St. Francis and the lamb that was tamed, it indicates that the choice was made by the lamb, not by St. Francis to carry it around.

First off, your point about St. Francis is irrelevant, because St. Francis bought the lamb.

Also, it is irrelevant that we CAN use animals for leisure without purchasing one (although I’m not quite sure how…). The fact is, we are allowed to purchase things, and we are allowed to use animals for leisure. Thus, we can have pets.

I don’t understand. Do you have a grudge against pets? Why are you so adamant about not letting people have any? So what if you lose this argument. That’s actually a good thing for everybody involved, including you.

 

[St_Stephen_1]

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.

God bless,
D.

I do not see how owning a pet can be wrong for any catholic. As far as I know many convents have a cat. Our parish priest has two dogs. I won’t get in to a discussion about circuses because I think they’re cruel. We could as easily argue that we should spend our money on helping out humans less fortunate than us rather than spending it on luxuries. When we go out for a meal, see a show at the theatre, watch a film at the cinema, when you wife buys another handbag, or another pair shoes, all that money could have been donated to charities like CAFOD.

 

[waanju]

One thing: The Pope has pets. He’s very fond of cats, and they even brought a cat to World Youth day last year so he wouldn’t miss the cats at the Vatican.

Also, you said somewhere that some pleasures are sins. That is very concerning, because it is NOT SO. ALL goodness comes from God. It is only when we corrupt God-given pleasure that we sin.
Ex. Pleasure from sex is from God and is good, when you degrade that pleasure through adultery, contraception, ect, you sin by changing that good into lust. Lust itself is not a pleasure.
Pleasure from yummy food is a gift from God. It is only when you abuse that pleasure, it becomes gluttony.
ect.

So, pleasure from taking care of a pet and loving it is good and is a gift from God. When you abuse that pleasure by giving pets the type of accordance naturally reserved for only human beings, or when you spend an excess amount of resources on the pet to the detriment of your fellow man, it is a sin. THis goes in accordance with the Catechism.

 

[dskysmine]

First off, your point about St. Francis is irrelevant, because St. Francis bought the lamb.

Also, it is irrelevant that we CAN use animals for leisure without purchasing one (although I’m not quite sure how…). The fact is, we are allowed to purchase things, and we are allowed to use animals for leisure. Thus, we can have pets.

I don’t understand. Do you have a grudge against pets? Why are you so adamant about not letting people have any? So what if you lose this argument. That’s actually a good thing for everybody involved, including you.

He bought the lambs (plural) to prevent them from being killed… not for egoistic reasons.
I am not adamant about not letting people have any. I want to find a non egoistic reason to have one… because I am a rational human being.
God bless,
D.

 

[davidv]

Not true. Look into St. Thomas’ writings on the difference between plants, animals and human beings.

Can you cite a specific writing that says that the soul is not the animating principle of every living thing, plant, animal or human?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

He bought the lambs (plural) to prevent them from being killed… not for egoistic reasons.

Why do you think you have to have an egotistic reason to own a pet? I own a dog because I love dogs. No ego there. Some people rescue dogs and take care of them. Is that an ego thing?

Anyway, you’re moving the goalposts. According to your argument, why he did it is irrelevant since he could have given the money to the poor.

 

[Linux]

Why do you think you have to have an egotistic reason to own a pet? I own a dog because I love dogs. No ego there. Some people rescue dogs and take care of them. Is that an ego thing?

Anyway, you’re moving the goalposts. According to your argument, why he did it is irrelevant since he could have given the money to the poor.

If its a choice between giving money to a dog shelter and giving money to people in poverty, i think you do have to have a good reason for providing for a dog instead of giving money to a human being. Anything in excess of what we need does have a moral question mark. I think it is a grave moral question about how we distribute our money. I think we take these questions for granted, thinking that some how the poor and the impoverished can be taken care of without the need for financial sacrifices from those that are exponentially better off.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If its a choice between giving money to a dog shelter and giving money to people in poverty, i think you do have to have a good reason for providing for a dog instead of giving money to a human being. Anything in excess of what we need does have a moral question mark. I think it is a grave moral question about how we distribute our money. I think we take these questions for granted, thinking that some how the poor and the impoverished can be taken care of without the need for financial sacrifices from those that are exponentially better off.

Then we’re back to the original question-whether or not we can have leisure or use our money on animals.

This has been answered. St. Francis used his money to buy a lamb. The Catechism says we can use animals for leisure. So we can buy animals and keep them as pets.

Face it guys, it’s okay to have pets. You should be happy about this, it’s good for all of us.

 

[Linux]

Then we’re back to the original question-whether or not we can have leisure or use our money on animals.

This has been answered. St. Francis used his money to buy a lamb. The Catechism says we can use animals for leisure. So we can buy animals and keep them as pets.

Face it guys, it’s okay to have pets. You should be happy about this, it’s good for all of us.

Does it really matter that a saint bought an animal? Saints are not infallible. A saint could have bought a bomb at some point in their lives, that does not really tell me whether or not it would be right to. And yes we can have pets for pleasure, but not if by having them a human being is left for dead or starvation. So we have to ask ourselves is buying this pet taking away from the greater good of helping people. If not, then that’s fine. But its not a question that should be taken lightly, and i think its a question that people don’t give serious thought to.

You ought to give money to “people” in poverty before ever thinking about giving to an animal shelter.

 

[dskysmine]

Why do you think you have to have an egotistic reason to own a pet? I own a dog because I love dogs. No ego there. Some people rescue dogs and take care of them. Is that an ego thing?

Anyway, you’re moving the goalposts. According to your argument, why he did it is irrelevant since he could have given the money to the poor.

No it’s not.
And you don’t really love dogs… you love to own a dog, which is different, because you don’t treat all dogs the same. It’s still egoistic.
Care to use rational reasoning?

Kind regards,
D.

 

[SweetLambs]

Does it really matter that a saint bought an animal? Saints are not infallible. A saint could have bought a bomb at some point in their lives, that does not really tell me whether or not it would be right to. And yes we can have pets for pleasure, but not if by having them a human being is left for dead or starvation. So we have to ask ourselves is buying this pet taking away from the greater good of helping people. If not, then that’s fine. But its not a question that should be taken lightly, and i think its a question that people don’t give serious thought to.

You ought to give money to “people” in poverty before ever thinking about giving to an animal shelter.

This really is an argument going in circles, and it makes no sense.

What you are saying, is that, as long as there is any human suffering in the world whatsoever, I may not keep a pet, nor engage in any activities whatsoever that are not required for life, if it takes away time or money that could potentially be used to help people.

Which means that we are not permitted any leisure whatsoever. And if you believe that, then you should discard your computer right away.

As for St. Francis being wrong about having a pet lamb, I’d like to respectfully suggest that this relationship between him and the lamb was blessed by God. I have sheep, and the behavior described is natural sheep behavior, greatly magnified. Lambs and sheep do not randomly follow strangers, and they do not normally kneel bleating before the altar of Mary. Sheep do respond positively to music, but it is unusual for them to bleat along with singing (though I have seen it myself).

The reason why I brought St. Francis into this as an example, is because I cannot think of another saint who so perfectly followed Christ in His message of forsaking the world and wealth and belongings, caring for his brethren, and yet also maintaining a strong love of his fellow creatures.

He wanted to have feed spread about the streets for the wildlife, and the best feed saved for the livestock, for Christmas.

No, saints aren’t infallible, but since he is a canonized saint of the Church, bore the stigmata, and so much more, I am not going to argue with his position on animals!

 

[zro_x]

Yes we must respect the Church’s teaching on subjects of morality. However per your previous posts on donning sackcloths and giving everything to the poor, what do you think about selling the Vatican and all of its artwork and treasures and giving the proceeds to the poor?

There is a biblical basis for those. In one part of the Gospel, Mary Magdalene breaks an expensive bottle of oil and pours it on Jesus. Judas gets angry and says that the oil could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus tells Judas that Mary acts correctly.

What we can gather from this is that we are allowed to use material goods in the glory of God, as the vatican does.

 

[Linux]

This really is an argument going in circles, and it makes no sense.

What you are saying, is that, as long as there is any human suffering in the world whatsoever, I may not keep a pet, nor engage in any activities whatsoever that are not required for life, if it takes away time or money that could potentially be used to help people.

Which means that we are not permitted any leisure whatsoever. And if you believe that, then you should discard your computer right away.

As for St. Francis being wrong about having a pet lamb, I’d like to respectfully suggest that this relationship between him and the lamb was blessed by God. I have sheep, and the behavior described is natural sheep behavior, greatly magnified. Lambs and sheep do not randomly follow strangers, and they do not normally kneel bleating before the altar of Mary. Sheep do respond positively to music, but it is unusual for them to bleat along with singing (though I have seen it myself).

The reason why I brought St. Francis into this as an example, is because I cannot think of another saint who so perfectly followed Christ in His message of forsaking the world and wealth and belongings, caring for his brethren, and yet also maintaining a strong love of his fellow creatures.

He wanted to have feed spread about the streets for the wildlife, and the best feed saved for the livestock, for Christmas.

No, saints aren’t infallible, but since he is a canonized saint of the Church, bore the stigmata, and so much more, I am not going to argue with his position on animals!

I never said there is no place for leisure or pets. I am saying that if its the difference between the life and death of human beings, then we have to consider whether or not it would be a sin to give money to an animal shelter over a starving person. And I am saying that it is self evidently wrong to decide to give to an animal shelter instead.

Leisure and entertainment is a divine good, but it is conditional. Leisure cannot come before serving other greater goods, like looking after our other brothers and sisters that God created. I am not saying that there is no place for owning things that are purely leisure orientated. But the fact is we live in a world where people would prefer to please leisurely desires before considering those who have nothing. If you have done your part to help your brothers and sisters insofar as that is practical, then you have the right to leisure. But how many of us are really doing that? God knows.

Even if I am wrong, you haven’t actually disproved my argument. You have merely said that I would not like to do something undesirable like get rid of my computer (which is a tool that I might actually need for all you know). That is not an argument. You are merely appealing to my desires by saying “you wouldn’t like to do that”. Morality is not about what we like.

 

[zro_x]

For those of you who keep touting St. Francis of Assisi, a poster on another thread had this to say about him:

Consider the case of St. Francis of Assisi. He is one of the most beloved and celebrated saints in history. He ordered his friars to not attend university and to not own any books. He was afraid that study and scholarship would lead his friars away from the direct heartfelt love of God and the direct heartfelt love of and close association with the common people (most of whom had no education, or, in any case, did not do intellectual jobs).

bolding mine.

As a man who repressed education, even for good intention, St. Franscis’s philosophy was clearly somewhat flawed in at least one area. I immagine St. Francis became a saint because of how his life reflected God’s love, not by his contributions to philosophy and theology.

 

[frizzgrig]

Can you cite a specific writing that says that the soul is not the animating principle of every living thing, plant, animal or human?

The question is the translation of the concept of anima wich was frequently translated as “soul” when the context is really “that which gives life.”

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae questions 65-102, specifically question 75 #3 shows St. Thomas at least differentiates the nature of what is translated as the world “soul” between plants, animals, and people.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

As a man who repressed education, even for good intention, St. Franscis’s philosophy was clearly somewhat flawed in at least one area. I immagine St. Francis became a saint because of how his life reflected God’s love, not by his contributions to philosophy and theology.

Your basis for saying it’s flawed is to support your thesis. As much as you hate it our position has backing among the Saints and yours doesn’t.

Seriously, I don’t get it. We can have pets! Embrace it! Be happy!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No it’s not.
And you don’t really love dogs… you love to own a dog, which is different, because you don’t treat all dogs the same. It’s still egoistic.
Care to use rational reasoning?

Kind regards,
D.

That makes no sense.

Good bye. Good luck convincing people of your crazy theories. As far as I’m concerned we’ve proven your thesis false many times over, and you claim we haven’t by repeating the arguments.

 

[zro_x]

Since this applies to both the thread “Thesis: I should not have a pet” and “Is lust a sin”, I’m going to post this on both of them.

In “Is Lust a Sin”, I supported the idea that God originally created man for marriage, but after the fall, It became our duty to try to alleviate the effects of sin in the world to the best of our ability, and that we must use all our resources of time and money in order to accomplish this task. This means no luxury, and no leisure. Since married people have a responsibility to look after each other and their children, it detracted from this mission. As having a pet usually costs time and money, it also detracts from this mission. However, another affect of the fall was that the sexual desires of some became impossible to control. God calls these and only these people to marriage because only in marriage can they find a place for these desires, and marriage is necessary for procreation. Thus, those who are married provide an important function(the continuation of the human race), but a less important function than those whose primary task is to alliviate the effects of original sin and come closer to God without familial distrations. This seems to be supported by some parts of scripture.

Then Scottgun and Marc Anthony, posters in “thesis: I should not have a pet” called my attention to the fact that the church catechism says that it is fine to use animals for work and leisure! Frizzgig, in the same thread, pointed out that even God rested on the seventh day, which reminded me that we are actually commanded to rest every seven days. I was not sure if I could reconcile these two things with my point of view, but when I found the answer it was surprisingly simple. After the fall, it became physically impossible for now weak human beings to work for God at all times. We all have to have a certain amount of leisure time, just as some are called to marriage because they can’t restrain their desires. However, I do not know of any place in the bible or infallible Catholic doctrine that proclaims that we must have luxury, so in most occasions, it still be a minimally venial sin to own pets.

 

[dskysmine]

That makes no sense.

Good bye. Good luck convincing people of your crazy theories. As far as I’m concerned we’ve proven your thesis false many times over, and you claim we haven’t by repeating the arguments.

Care to show how and when did you prove the thesis false?
You have used fallacies and misnomers for most of your positions, nothing that I could construe as an argument actually.

God bless,
D.

 

[waanju]

B16 has a pet cat. And has talked about it before. There’s even a book about one of his pet cats. They brought a cat to youth day in Madrid so he wouldn’t miss his pet cat.

If owning pets were immoral, this would cause scandal.

Somehow, I don’t think B16 would ever cause scandal knowingly. I also think that he would know if owning a pet was immoral.

That’s all I’m gonna say.