Why do animals suffer?

[CatsAndDogs]

Animals do not need a soul because animals can not sin,…

You’ve got that backwards.

Animals can’t sin because they have no souls.

It is wrong to cause needless pain to animals. It is not wrong to kill and eat them, or do research on them.

If you lived among them and watched them, you may begin to think so too.

I have lived among animals my entire life.

But, animals are not persons. Check your thinking with the Church as to “over-empathizing” with animals.

:shamrock2:

 

[cathybramble]

I have had several dogs, and I have (and presently do) love my dog(s) very much. But I love them as DOGS, and not as “little doggy people”.

I do, though, think that cats are true demon spawn! <chuckle, chuckle!>

It is wrong (as per that CCC section [2418?]) to see animals as persons, or persons as animals.

The so-called suffering of animals is simply a mechanistic aspect of the material universe. The suffering of persons is always and everywhere of redemptive value.

There is NO comparison between these two types of “suffering”.

:shamrock2:

the original post didn’t ask if animal suffering was redemptive. i think we all know it’s not redemptive … i think that is actually the crux of the biscuit here. it is not redemptive, so why does it happen that they experience pain and emotional distress (what most of us would refer to as suffering), since it redeems nothing?

and the answer is the same answer that has been given all along. in the beginning, nothing suffered in any way, there was no pain, disease, or death. the only ones capable of sin in the garden were adam and eve. so the only ones who brought death and suffering into the world, for the whole world, were adam and eve. they were given everything and blew it. for you and for me, and all the other creatures on the planet.

 

[cathybramble]

You’ve got that backwards.

Animals can’t sin because they have no souls.

It is wrong to cause needless pain to animals. It is not wrong to kill and eat them, or do research on them.

if we are using them for food and clothing, and research, is it then okay to cause them needless pain or emotional distress?

I have lived among animals my entire life.

But, animals are not persons. Check your thinking with the Church as to “over-empathizing” with animals.

:shamrock2:

this is not about elevating animals to human status… it is about elevating humans to humane beings, as they are meant to be but often are not.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
To the suggestion that animals pre-fall were all leaf eaters… what? Again, why is it evil or disordered for a lion to eat a lamb?

Saint Jerome
The eating of meat was unknown up to the big flood, but since the flood they have the strings and stinking juices of animal meat into our mouths, just as they threw in front of the grumbling sensual people in the desert. Jesus Christ, who appeared when the time had been fulfilled, has again joined the end with the beginning, so that it is no longer allowed for us to eat animal meat.

Did that come from HERE?

Is it really healthy to empathize so much with one’s food?

The “faction” that thinks that it is evil to treat animals as animals is a bit too “fundamentalist” in orientation, to me. But, I could be wrong, I suppose.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The rationalization that animals don’t have feelings or **possess a soul **is just one of the ways people lie to themselves so they don’t feel guilty for the way humans treat other non-human sentient beings.

I know that my dog has feelings. We agree that animals have feelings, and are, as fitting for their particular species, sentient.

But they are not human-equivalents, and DO NOT possess a soul.

They are here for us. We (humans and animals) are not here “for each other”.

To consider that animals are on par with humans simply because they are “sentient beings” is nature worship, and a non-Catholic belief.

There is no excuse for cruelty. But there is also no excuse for not using a God given resource as a resource for the advancement of the will of God.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

then the only task you would seem to have is simply to justify that statement with some facts that support it. can you do it?

Which statement of mine are you asking me to supply facts to support?

:shamrock2:

 

[Smber2c]

To all of your points, my answer is study Genesis, it will provide the answers you are looking for.

Such a lazy respone, I though you wanted to help me understand.

I’ve read Genesis many times. And yes God ‘could’ poof something into existance, but there all trillions of things God ‘could’ do - I’m asking DID HE? And WHY?

Instead of giving any rational for your argument you suggest I’m uneducated and don’t respond. Well I’ll try again:

WHY IS PAIN EVIL?

CAN GOD NOT BE OMNIBENOVOLENT AND STILL CREATE A WORLD WHERE CREATURES EXPERIENCE PAIN?

On a side point, are you a biblical literalist? Becuase, there are many problems with thinking Genesis is a tried and true history/science book. A good Catholic is absolutely allowed to acknowledge Genesis a “Truth” in it’s teaching on the why and what of creation without assuming it was meant to tell the when and how.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

animals do not need redemptive suffering. they are innocent.

Correct.

but they suffer physically and emotionally nonetheless, in much the same way that we do.

Correct.

i thought the question was about animals suffering, not animals “suffering redemptively like humans do”?

They suffer pain. They do not suffer as persons do.

I agree that animals suffer pain, but the REASON, the WHY (which is the interrogative in the title of this thread!), that animals suffer is because they are part of the MACHINERY of the universe (certainly post-fall and possibly pre-fall) and the machinery of the universe occasionally “grinds things up”.

Animals suffer (pain) because they are food and because they are accident victims.

Animals DON’T suffer “redemptive suffering” because that’s not their function in the world.

…in other words, animals don’t go to heaven. They are destroyed (dis-integrated) as all material “constellations” are destroyed when their “time of usefulness is up”.

I hope that clears up our obvious confusion with each other.

:shamrock2:

 

[That_one_guy]

I know that my dog has feelings. We agree that animals have feelings, and are, as fitting for their particular species, sentient.

But they are not human-equivalents, and DO NOT possess a soul.

:shamrock2:

Revelations 5:13 And I heard EVERY creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea,…

animals are creatures.No? and in heaven? how do you get into heaven if you don’t have a soul?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

in the beginning, nothing suffered in any way, there was no pain, disease, or death. the only ones capable of sin in the garden were adam and eve. so the only ones who brought death and suffering into the world, for the whole world, were adam and eve. they were given everything and blew it. for you and for me, and all the other creatures on the planet.

Please show me where there was no pain (etc) inflicting the animals of the pre-fallen world. Thanks.

The animals are like the rocks. They are not our “brothers”. They are our environment. They are here for us. We are not here for them.

(( It’s certainly fine not to abuse the animals, and to take pleasure in their beauty, and promote their well-being, but they mustn’t be treated as actual “lateral offspring” of our “common Father”. ))

Whether the animals suffered pain or not in the pre-fall world is truly irrelevant, and is merely a distraction.

How does it make a whit of difference if the animals suffered no pain (etc) in the pre-fall world? What would such knowledge “promote”, in your opinion?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You’ve got that backwards.

Animals can’t sin because they have no souls.

It is wrong to cause needless pain to animals. It is not wrong to kill and eat them, or do research on them.

if we are using them for food and clothing, and research, is it then okay to cause them needless pain or emotional distress?

Needless distress (pain, etc) is NEEDLESS! …by definition, and is therefore wrong (an evil-deed).

But properly “dispatching” them (and raising them) makes using them as clothing, food and research subjects perfectly right (non-evil) to do.

Guess who gets to define “needless” in the above statements? The Church. What does she say in regard to this matter?

I’ll leave it at that. Take it up with the Church as to whether eating meat is acceptable.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Revelations 5:13 And I heard EVERY creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea,…

animals are creatures.No? and in heaven? how do you get into heaven if you don’t have a soul?

So, you think that every creature (human and otherwise) has it’s own soul?

Please research “soul”.

Best to you.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

this is not about elevating animals to human status… it is about elevating humans to humane beings, as they are meant to be but often are not.

I’m all for that, but “radical animal rights” types don’t get to define what “humane” means, not that you’re one of those “lovely folks”.

The Church, via the Magisterium, gets to define these moral issues, and as far as I can tell she still allows me to eat hamburgers, wear a leather belt and benefit from medical research on animal subjects under certain conditions.

:shamrock2:

 

[Smber2c]

Original: “Just because someone doesn’t think an animal is less than human, or because they think that an animal is a tool for our wellfare, or whatever else - in no way means that person hates animals.”

Yes, it does.Or at least it implies that they don’t recognize the sentience of the animal.

You logic is completely failed. I know that animals have sentience, I also know that they are less than human. The two are not mutualy exculsive. An sentinent animal is not automatically equal to human.

When we ‘create’ we make paintings, bridges, or books. All of our creations are without feeling, thought, or motivation.
When God creates He makes stars, oceans, birds, tigers, or humans. God’s creations run the gamut. Some are dead, some alive. Some are intelligent and some dumb. Some have eternal souls and some do not. Just because I think God made some to be eaten by others doesn’t mean that they were not good.

Saint Jerome
The eating of meat was unknown up to the big flood, but since the flood they have the strings and stinking juices of animal meat into our mouths, just as they threw in front of the grumbling sensual people in the desert. Jesus Christ, who appeared when the time had been fulfilled, has again joined the end with the beginning, so that it is no longer allowed for us to eat animal meat.

You are really going to think I’m playing devils advocate here, and I promise I’m not…but St. Jerome can be wrong, he likely is here. Justin Martyr thought that Jesus was less than the Father, secondary. Tertullian embraced much many of the Montanists’ now heretical teachings. St. Augustine though a human recieved a soul at 3 months.
Theology took many generations to develope to where we are in understanding and many great saints made enrrant claims out of their limited knowledge.

The needless killing of animals by humans for ‘sport’,or even just the dysfunctional adolescent who ties cats tails together or puts a firecracker in a frogs mouth,…is that not sheer cruelty?

Yes, these abusing animals is obviously sinful. I’m not saying that you can do anything you like to a pet or wild animal. I’m saying that they feel pain and that it wasn’t a result of Original Sin.

When I hear this sort of reasoning I have to wonder if you are merely playing the devils advocate? or is your heart really that cold?
Animals are sentient beings.They are happy, sad, they learn and think and even reason in ways peculiar to their species.

Maybe you should,like,get a puppy or something. Or maybe not.That might be cruel to the puppy…

Again, no I’m not playing devils advocate. I think that animals are unreasonably elevated to a position of equal to human by many kind but wrong people. I’d say over half of the Catholics I meet think their pets will greet them in heaven. And I don’t know, they might that’s God’s call, but to focus on their being in heaven more than God being in heaven (and I know some who have) could be enough to keep you from ever entering. God is 1st. If you don’t accept that. If you put a spouse first. A pet. A principal. It could be the 1 thing that puts you in hell.

On the flip side, I’ve never heard anyone actually suggest that torture of animals is okay. Thus I don’t feel the need to go preaching that, despite its being equally true (and thus also a position that could get one in hell).

 

[cathybramble]

Correct.

Correct.

They suffer pain. They do not suffer as persons do.

I agree that animals suffer pain, but the REASON, the WHY (which is the interrogative in the title of this thread!), that animals suffer is because they are part of the MACHINERY of the universe (certainly post-fall and possibly pre-fall) and the machinery of the universe occasionally “grinds things up”.
**
Animals suffer (pain) because they are food and because they are accident victims.**

Animals DON’T suffer “redemptive suffering” because that’s not their function in the world.

…in other words, animals don’t go to heaven. They are destroyed (dis-integrated) as all material “constellations” are destroyed when their “time of usefulness is up”.

I hope that clears up our obvious confusion with each other.

:shamrock2:

you are “begging the question.” it answers nothing that is being asked.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

you are “begging the question.” it answers nothing that is being asked.

The question was (and still is in the title):

“Why do animals suffer?”

My answer was:

“Because they are food and because they are accident victims.”

I might also add:

“Pain is not a ‘physical evil’”

…but that’s just complicating the issue needlessly,… unless it isn’t.



:shamrock2:

 

[cathybramble]

Needless distress (pain, etc) is NEEDLESS! …by definition, and is therefore wrong (an evil-deed).

But properly “dispatching” them (and raising them) makes using them as clothing, food and research subjects perfectly right (non-evil) to do.

Guess who gets to define “needless” in the above statements? The Church. What does she say in regard to this matter?

I’ll leave it at that. Take it up with the Church as to whether eating meat is acceptable.

:shamrock2:

if you can raise and kill an animal without causing it a great deal of pain and emotional grief, but instead, out of greed, DO cause those things to happen… then that would be needless suffering, no? suffering in husbandry/slaughter that could have reasonably been prevented or avoided would appear to be needless. do you need the Church to spell that out? maybe a priest could clarify it for you.

let me clear something else up here since you brought up asking the church about eating meat -
i don’t have a moral issue about eating meat, in and of itself - no one here has said it’s a sin to eat meat and i certainly don’t think it is. i do think it is wrong, a moral evil, to contribute to the wanton and needless suffering inflicted on food animals by modern farming techniques. this suffering is a product of greed and a gluttonous society that demands unlimited and inexpensive animal-based foods. they demand it to the point where animals are no longer treated as creatures capable of feeling pain or mental distress, which i think we agree - they do. as defined in the CCC, causing needless pain to animals is a sin. it follows that paying someone else to cause needless pain to animals in order to eat it in excess, would therefore also be a sin aside from gluttony.

but hey - if i had some land, i’d raise a few chickens for eggs, maybe a couple of goats or a cow for dairy. i am personally opposed to killing when it is not necessary, but i respect those who raise and slaughter their own food. don’t get the “animal suffering” discussion tangled up in your own opinions about eating meat or not - they are separate issues.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

if you can raise and kill an animal without…

Ignoring you now.

Have a great day!

:shamrock2:

 

[That_one_guy]

Animals DON’T suffer “redemptive suffering” because that’s not their function in the world.

…in other words, animals don’t go to heaven.

Why did God accept Abels sacrifice over Cains? Why did the ancient Jews sacrifice animals?I know that Jesus’ sacrifice abolished this.And I am also aware that Hebrews 10:4(good buddy ) states that the BLOOD of bulls and goats cannot redeem…etc
So what was it that God required from these animals that ,at least temporarily, appeased Him?

 

[cathybramble]

The question was (and still is in the title):

“Why do animals suffer?”

My answer was:

“Because they are food and because they are accident victims.”

I might also add:

“Pain is not a ‘physical evil’”

…but that’s just complicating the issue needlessly,… unless it isn’t.



:shamrock2:

you are presuming that animals were created as food, which has no basis in fact.

no i don’t care to help you mentally mast*rbate on the notion of pain vs. physical evil. it would take us several pages of posts to arrive at your definitions of “pain,” “physical,” and “evil”