Why do animals suffer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find this anthropic view too limited. All the animals were created for homo sapiens to use as seen fit? The planet was created for homo sapiens? The cosmos was created just for our species?
No.
“So it is with the parts of the universe: each creature exists first for its own proper activity and well-being; second, lower creatures are for the higher, as plants and beasts are for men; third, each is for the integrity of the whole; last, the whole universe with all its parts is ordered to God as to its end, by copying and sharing forth divine goodness to the glory of God.” - St Thomas Aquinas
I think if there is a loving God, then “nature, red in tooth in claw” is part of the creation process. I really don’t see how love or compassion fits in this divine creation though.
Can you design a world without suffering?
 
I don’t want to derail this thread, but some of your arguments need more explanation I think.

You said the universe and everything in it was created for our species. So, you rule out the possibility of extraterrestrials?
Of course.

Denziger
Pope Pius II (1460)

[From the Bull “Exsecrabilis,”* Jan. 18; in the ancient Roman opinion 1459; that of today 1460]

717 The execrable and hitherto unheard of abuse has grown up in our day, that certain persons, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, and not from a desire to secure a better judgment, but to escape the punishment of some offense which they have committed, presume to appeal to a future council from the Roman Pontiff, the vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom in the person of the blessed PETER was said: “Feed my sheep” [John 21:17], and, “Whatever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven” [Matt. 16:19]. . . . Wishing therefore to expel this pestiferous poison far from the Church of Christ and to care for the salvation of the flock entrusted to us, and to remove every cause of offense from the fold of our Savior . . . we condemn all such appeals and disprove them as erroneous and detestable.

[Condemned in the letter “Cum sicut,” Nov. 14, 1459]

717c (3) That God created another world than this one, and that in its time many other men and women existed and that consequently Adam was not the first man.
What’s a lie, that nature is red in tooth and claw?
No, that ““nature, red in tooth in claw” is part of the creation process” is a lie. The creation process was completed in six days of God’s “work”. His continuing work sustains His creation - which has since fallen, and so is cursed, hence suffering and death.
So, if natural evil is a mystery because God’s ways are so above our ways, what is the whole truth?
See above.
Hmm, so you are claiming that animals did not experience pain and suffering before the Fall because the world was created in 3 days?
Dude, seriously, try to keep up.
“I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7
Right, God created all things, including creatures that do evil.
Wow, does that include Pius XI and John Paul II ? newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
That includes anyone who tries to synthesize the theory of evolution with the Truth - it can’t be done.
 
That includes anyone who tries to synthesize the theory of evolution with the Truth - it can’t be done.
Sure it can. Dr. Francis Collins, a Christian, and former head of the Human Genome Project has recently created an organization named after his term he coins biologos. He prefers that over theistic evolution, or evolutionary theology.

biologos.org/

“Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to address the escalating culture war between science and faith in the United States. On one end of the spectrum, “new atheists” argue that science removes the need for God. On the other end, religious fundamentalists argue that the Bible requires us to reject much of modern science. Many people — including scientists and believers in God — do not find these extreme options attractive.”

There is also the biology professor and Catholic, Dr. Ken Miller youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&feature=channel_page

There are many others, including the two most recent popes, who see no contradiction between macro-evolution and creation.
 
My understanding is that when Adam and Eve committed the first sin causing their fall from grace, the animal kingdom fell with them. I am not sure if this is an entirely fleshed out doctrine, but it is perfectly reasonable to me.
 
My understanding is that when Adam and Eve committed the first sin causing their fall from grace, the animal kingdom fell with them. I am not sure if this is an entirely fleshed out doctrine, but it is perfectly reasonable to me.
It is very unlikely that the Universe was created in 6 days.

So my question is based on the fact that animals have been suffering before the time that the first humans sinned.
 
It is very unlikely that the Universe was created in 6 days.
Its “very unlikely” that Jesus walked on water, and yet, He did! And to use the example in your most excellent siggy, science would tell us that the Holy Eucharist is just bread and wine, and yet we know by faith that it is the body and blood of Christ. Looks can be deceiving, no?
So my question is based on the fact that animals have been suffering before the time that the first humans sinned.
Its not a fact. And you wouldn’t be troubled by this if you believed what Moses wrote, like you believe what Jesus says. 😉
 
Its “very unlikely” that Jesus walked on water, and yet, He did! And to use the example in your most excellent siggy, science would tell us that the Holy Eucharist is just bread and wine, and yet we know by faith that it is the body and blood of Christ. Looks can be deceiving, no?

Its not a fact. And you wouldn’t be troubled by this if you believed what Moses wrote, like you believe what Jesus says. 😉
I do believe Genesis, but even the popes have said that Genesis does not have to be taken on a literal word-by-word basis. The book’s not an account of science. You have to take note of a book’s genre and the author’s intention.
 
I do believe Genesis, but even the popes have said that Genesis does not have to be taken on a literal word-by-word basis. The book’s not an account of science. You have to take note of a book’s genre and the author’s intention.
Catholics do not believe in private interpretation. Catholics do not start our reading the bible and figuring it out for themselves. We look to the Magisterium for the constant teaching and belief of the Church.

So- what has been the constant teaching and belief of the Church regarding Genesis?
 
They suffer because of limited resources, predators, and genetic imperfection. They perceive (limited) suffering because natural selection favors beings that have adverse reactions to circumstances harmful to themselves.
 
So- what has been the constant teaching and belief of the Church regarding Genesis?
Buffalo!!! I don’t know why you ask me this, since you know very well that a Catholic can believe in evolution.👍

The Catechism mentions Genesis two times, and in one place it says:
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. 264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
 
Buffalo!!! I don’t know why you ask me this, since you know very well that a Catholic can believe in evolution.👍

The Catechism mentions Genesis two times, and in one place it says:390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. 264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
I repeat the question -
 
I repeat the question -
I don’t have time to read every single Church father & magesterial document on the issue :p, but since I believe the Church contains the truth, I go with what the Catechism says. Genesis describes a real event but used figurative language. Original sin happened. That doesn’t mean there was a serpent present.
 
I do believe Genesis, but even the popes have said that Genesis does not have to be taken on a literal word-by-word basis. The book’s not an account of science. You have to take note of a book’s genre and the author’s intention.
I didn’t say you don’t believe Genesis, just that you don’t believe it “like” you believe the Gospel. For example, when Jesus said He would rise from the dead on the “third day”, you know exactly what He meant and you believe it. But when Moses wrote, quoting God, that God created all things in “six days”, all of a sudden you don’t know what it means. 🤷
 
I didn’t say you don’t believe Genesis, just that you don’t believe it “like” you believe the Gospel. For example, when Jesus said He would rise from the dead on the “third day”, you know exactly what He meant and you believe it. But when Moses wrote, quoting God, that God created all things in “six days”, all of a sudden you don’t know what it means. 🤷
It’s called genre. 😉

Pope John Paul II explained on November 7, 1979,1 that Genesis 1-3 is “myth.” As the Pope explained, “the term myth does not designate a fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper content.” (See Pope John Paul II, Original Unity of Man and Woman, Catechesis on the Book of Genesis)

St. Augustine, said this about Genesis (De Genesi ad litterams 6.12.20), “That God made man with bodily hands from the clay,” wrote Augustine, “is an excessively childish thought … we should rather believe the one who wrote it used a metaphorical term, instead of supposing God is bounded by such lines of limbs as we see in our bodies.”

Pius XII says about the first 11 chapters of Genesis “even though they do not fully match the pattern of historical composition used by the great Greek and Latin writers of history, or by modern historians, yet in a certain sense-which needs further investigation by scholars-they do pertain to the genre of history.”

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=6&chapnum=10&id=1879&repos=7&subrepos=0&searchid=494014

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=216&chapnum=12&id=2117&repos=7&subrepos=0&searchid=494014
 
It’s called genre. 😉
Oh, I never heard of that before. :rolleyes:
Pope John Paul II explained on November 7, 1979,1 that Genesis 1-3 is “myth.” As the Pope explained, “the term myth does not designate a fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper content.” (See Pope John Paul II, Original Unity of Man and Woman, Catechesis on the Book of Genesis)
The pope can make up his own definition of the word “myth” if he wants, but I will go with the Word of God over the personal, fallible opinions of men every time:

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16)

St. Peter was the first pope, btw, and He was infallible when he wrote that. 😉 And so was St. Paul:

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons… If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.” (1 Timothy 4:1-7)

Dear Saint, do you mean like the “Godless myth” of Evolution which has arisen in these “later times”? I’m trying to point it out to them! Help! Mother Mary, “destroyer of heresies”, please help. Do you, dear Saint, think that the theory of evolution is a “doctrine of demons”?

Our Lady of La Salette (1846): “In the year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell; they will put an end to faith little by little, even in those dedicated to God. They will blind them in such a way, that, unless they are blessed with a special grace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls. Evil books will be abundant on earth and the spirits of darkness will spread everywhere a universal slackening in all that concerns the service of GOD.”

I’ll take that as a yes. :sad_yes: Dear Lord, what do You say?

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’” - Jesus Christ

And Your vicars?

“… since it is He through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made, and who enlivened man, shaped from the slime of the earth, with the breath of rational life, the same would restore our nature, fallen at the beginning of time, to its lost dignity, and He would be the Reformer, too, of that of which he was the Creator.” - Pope St. Leo the Great

What else, Lord?

“If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” - Jesus Christ

Let’s see:

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” - Richard Dawkins

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” - William Provine

Lord?

“A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” - Jesus Christ
 
Cont…
St. Augustine, said this about Genesis (De Genesi ad litterams 6.12.20), “That God made man with bodily hands from the clay,” wrote Augustine, “is an excessively childish thought … we should rather believe the one who wrote it used a metaphorical term, instead of supposing God is bounded by such lines of limbs as we see in our bodies.”
There they go again, twisting and distorting the words of the beleaguered St. Augustine to defend their doctrines of demons. Here is something else St. Augustine said in the same book:

“Nevertheless, one should not take the whole passage in a figurative sense on the basis of one word used in a transferred sense. Consider what was meant by the serpent’s words, ‘Your eyes will be open.’ The author states that this is what the serpent said; the meaning or thought behind what was said is left to the discernment of the reader. But the statement, ‘Then the eyes of both were opened, and they perceived that they were naked,’ is put forth in the way in which the other facts are narrated, and they cannot suggest to us an allegorical narrative.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 11, 41)

And more from this dear Saint:

“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been… But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” (The City of God, 12, 10)

“But if we should suppose that God now makes a creature without having implanted its kind (genus) in His original creation, we should flatly contradict Sacred Scripture, which says that on the sixth day God finished all His works. For it is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. But we cannot believe that He establishes a new kind, since He finished all His works on the sixth day.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 5, 41)

“When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will cling to our Mediator, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge [Colossians 2:3], that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1, 41)

See this article: Pope says evolution can’t be proven

And, again, the bottom line:

“Because God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being” (Wisdom 1:13-14)

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:8)

And read this article to see what the Catholic Church actually teaches on Creation. God bless.

kolbecenter.org/pdf/Keane_days_of_creation_150.pdf
 
We suffer because it was our (well, the first humans’) choice to choose himself over God (original sin and all that…). But why do animals suffer? I’ve heard that nature crashed when man did, but saying that animals started to suffer after the fall goes against science, history, etc. So animals have always suffered (they have to eat each other to survive, etc.).

So why do animals suffer and get sick?
Because they are delicious? 😃

Okay, let me write out an excerpt here…
When you consider it from a human perspective, and clearly it would be difficult for us to do otherwise, life is an odd thing. It couldn’t wait to get going, but then, having gotten going, it seemed in very little hurry to move on.
Consider the lichen. Lichens are just about the hardest visible organisms on Earth, but among the least ambitious. They will grow happily enough in a sunny churchyard, but they particularly thrive in environments where no other organism would go - on blowy mountaintops and artic wastes, wherever there is little but rock and rain and cold, and almost no competition.
Like most things that thrive in harsh environments, lichens are slow-growing. It make take a lichen more than half a century to attain the dimensions of a shirt button (depending on the species of course). Those the size of dinner plates, are likely to be hundreds if not thousands of years old. It would be hard to imagine a less fulfilling existence. They simply exist, testifying to the moving fact that life at its simplest level occurs, apparently, just for it’s own sake.
It is easy to overlook this thought that life just is. As humans, we are inclined to feel that life must have a point. We have plans and aspirations and desires. We want to take constant advantage of all the intoxicating existence we’ve been endowed with. But what’s life to a lichen? Yet is impulse to exist, to be, is every bit as strong as ours - arguable even stronger. If I were told that I had to spend decades being a furry growth on a rock in the woods, I believe I would lose the will to go on. Lichens don’t. Like virtually all living things, they will suffer any hardship, endure any insult, for a moment’s additional existence. Life, in short, just wants to be. But - and here’s an interesting point - for the most part, it doesn’t seem to want to be much.
 
And read this article to see what the Catholic Church actually teaches on Creation. God bless.

kolbecenter.org/pdf/Keane_days_of_creation_150.pdf
Oh come on friend,

What the Catholic Church “actually” teaches??
Why don’t you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church first to see what the Church “actually” teaches.

There was a time when the Church taught the earth was the center of the universe and the sun spun around the Earth… That’s why she condemned Galileo…

Of course it wasn’t dogma and its changed it teaching for obvious reasons. The six day creation is NOT dogma.
it’s a traditional (lower case ‘t’) belief from some of the Church Fathers. Its fallible…
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” - Moses
“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” - Jesus Christ
Nice signature… you and I both know Jesus was referring to the prophecies but you twisted it to fit your agenda.

How about this…
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.
  • St. Thomas Aquinas
 
CONTINUED…
There they go again, twisting and distorting the words of the beleaguered St. Augustine to defend their doctrines of demons.

–and–

See this article: Pope says evolution can’t be proven
The only one distorting is you…
St. Augustine believed in an instant creation.
But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!
St. Augustine
- City of God
He stated…
They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed
…in response to the pagan view of an infinite universe and an old Earth

Since Augustine believed in an instant creation, he followed the same time line as a modern creationist
(give or take 6 days :D)
“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject.”
Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho
For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries,** the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. **
Origen - De Principiis
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) - International Theological Commission July 2004
 
When you consider it from a human perspective, and clearly it would be difficult for us to do otherwise, life is an odd thing. It couldn’t wait to get going, but then, having gotten going, it seemed in very little hurry to move on.
So what? Why are you in such a hurry? Do you expect instant Creation?!
Consider the lichen. Lichens are just about the hardest visible organisms on Earth, but among the least ambitious. They will grow happily enough in a sunny churchyard, but they particularly thrive in environments where no other organism would go - on blowy mountaintops and artic wastes, wherever there is little but rock and rain and cold, and almost no competition.
Does all life have to be ambitious?
Like most things that thrive in harsh environments, lichens are slow-growing. It make take a lichen more than half a century to attain the dimensions of a shirt button (depending on the species of course). Those the size of dinner plates, are likely to be hundreds if not thousands of years old. It would be hard to imagine a less fulfilling existence. They simply exist, testifying to the moving fact that life at its simplest level occurs, apparently, just for** its **own sake.
“apparently” is the significant word.
It is easy to overlook this thought that life just is.
How do you **know **that?
As humans, we are inclined to feel that life must have a point.
Perhaps you’re deluded that we’re all deluded!🙂 Why is it that we are so inclined?
We have plans and aspirations and desires. We want to take constant advantage of all the intoxicating existence we’ve been endowed with.
“endowed” is another significant word. Gifts generally imply a giver.
But what’s life to a lichen? Yet its impulse to exist, to be, is every bit as strong as ours - arguable even stronger.
How did it acquire that impulse?
If I were told that I had to spend decades being a furry growth on a rock in the woods, I believe I would lose the will to go on.
So would we all. 🙂 Where do you get the will to go on? Trying to prove that life is pointless?
Lichens don’t. Like virtually all living things, they will suffer any hardship, endure any insult, for a moment’s additional existence. Life, in short, just wants to be.
“wants” is another significant word. Inanimate objects don’t have wants. How did life obtain the urge to stay alive? By magic? By accident? By chance? Or was it endowed?
But - and here’s an interesting point - for the most part, it doesn’t seem to want to be much.
Does everything have to have the same wants and desires? Please don’t despise the humble lichen. At least it minds its own business - unlike Hitler and Stalin…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top