Catholic Word of the Day: CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, 06-15-10

CatholicReference.net ^ | 06-15-10 | Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

[Salvation]

Featured Term (selected at random):

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Causing unnecessary pain to animals. Man has no duties toward animals because they have no independent personalities. They may therefore be used for any ethical purpose. It is sinful, however, to cause an animal needless suffering. The sinfulness does not lie in the violation of an animal's rights but in a person's irrational conduct, since reason forbids causing unnecessary pain and death. Moreover, cruelty to animals has a brutalizing effect on the tormentor.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

[Salvation]

This should bering lots of comments.

I wasn't going to post it until I saw this line:

The sinfulness does not lie in the violation of an animal's rights but in a person's irrational conduct, since reason forbids causing unnecessary pain and death.

So what about the pain and death caused through the abortion process? (You all knew I would get there, didn't you?) Humans have a soul; animals do not.

Is it a greater sin to kill (abort) a baby or kill an animal?

The church goes with killing the human baby -- automatic excommunication.

[Salvation]

Moreover, cruelty to animals has a brutalizing effect on the tormentor.

I can't even imagine the brutalizing effect that killing humans has for an abortionist and the people under his/her employ.

[Salvation]

Catholic Word of the Day – links will be provided later by another FReeper.

 

Mass Salutation	Old Law	Nazarene
Subjectivism	Papal Coronation	Apostle
Subdiaconate	Mala Fide	Spiritual Espousals
Baptistery	Didache (Teaching of the twelve Apostles)	Aglipayanism
Tabernacle	Council of Trullo	Mortuarium
Repairing Scandal	Auriesville	New Law
Perfectae Caritatis	Violence	Tertian
Rule	Corpus Christi	Czestochowa
Solicitude	Evil Desire	Hexameron
Quadragesimo Anno	Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem	Latin Architecture
Apocalypse	Possessive Instinct	Alb
Cruelty to Animals

Catholic Word of the Day Ping!

Please send me a FReepmail if you would like to be on the Catholic Word of the Day Ping List.

[Huck]

Man has no duties toward animals because they have no independent personalities.

Pure buncombe.

[Celerity]

I’m afraid I have yet to see (And thus agree) a soul-less animal.

My cats, my dogs, even my Hamster have had decent character (Mothering unquestionably, defending without hesitation, and sharing resources with others of even different species (Like bringing me a dead bird, for instance)). They definately have personality.

No soul ? Really ?

[Doulos1]

I’m sorry, the Roman Catholic church can never be
taken seriously as long as the church allows someone
like Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry remain active in
their ranks- in good standing. Remember the sot, adulterer,
and murderer Teddy K.? Did he have good standing in
the RC church? Yes, I think he did. Hmmmm.

[Secret Agent Man]

I would also point out that many domesticated animals that are pets DO have independent personalities and do not live totally on instinct. Anyone who’s owned more than one dog, cat, rabbit, etc realizes they have their own unique personalities.

And if we do decide to buy a pet, we do have responsibilities to provide adequate care, shelter and food for that animal, as it is 100% dependent on us for their needs.

This whole attitude of “it’s lesser life (because it’s not made in the image of God), therefore we can disregard it, treat it badly without much worry” is not a proper Christian stewardship mindset. For those that possess this mindset it is very telling of their own morality. If you’re weaker or lesser in their eyes, you are going to be treated worse, and that’s fair to them. The danger is having this mindset for anything and anyone that person deems to be lesser than themselves. Why do we treat it more poorly just because it’s lesser than you?

God loves the animals He creates. Wild and those that become our pets or service animals. Often He compares how he feels towards us with references to parent animals taking care of their offspring. In 2 Samuel when David is confronted by Samuel for getting Uriah killed to be with his wife, Samuel talks about a story of the rich and poor man, and the poor man having a little lamb he loved so much he held it at the table and let it eat off his plate and drink from is cup, raising it as if it was like a daughter to him. The rich man has a guest and instead of killing his own lamb, he takes the poor man’s lamb and kills it, at which point David gets furious at the rich man (not knowing he’s the rich man in the metaphor) and calls for the rich man’s blood.

I really am disappointed at the logic in these statements as being so cold and indifferent and un-stewardly in their nature. But this is what we see from churches today.

[dila813]

Causing unnecessary pain to animals. Man has no duties toward animals because they have no independent personalities. They may therefore be used for any ethical purpose. It is sinful, however, to cause an animal needless suffering. The sinfulness does not lie in the violation of an animal’s rights but in a person’s irrational conduct, since reason forbids causing unnecessary pain and death. Moreover, cruelty to animals has a brutalizing effect on the tormentor.

I disagree this for three reasons:
1. Is intent, if the person isn’t trying to torture the animal it shouldn’t matter if the method of dispatch is cruel. Who decides what is cruel anyways?
2. Some animals require what may be regarded as cruelty in order to harvest. Example: Crabs and other seafood are boiled alive.
3. Conscience, this matters. The person will know they are doing something wrong and unnecessary. This definition mentions unnecessary but not conscience as if it is up to another man to define this. Should we sedate all animals before we dispatch them? Is this the standard?

[walford]

Indeed. In simple creatures, there is “somebody” in there. Even plants can exhibit a personality of sorts. In every living thing, there is a Divine spark.

Such attributes as a “soul” or a “personality” were not invented with homo sapiens. We are NOT the Almighty’s Chosen species. If we mess up, the world will go on quite nicely without us.

[Joe 6-pack]

You will not find a greater lover of animals on this forum, but indeed, animals do not have "personalities". The mere word itself, "personality" describes the unique qualities of individual personhood...an attribute that is particular to humans. It may be parsing, but I believe animals have their own unique spirits, and individual qualities and characteristics that set them apart from all others of their species or even breed, but they are not persons, and ergo have no "personality."

Indeed, many competent and experienced trainers of dogs and other animals are very wary of, and strong in their admonitions against anthropomorphism, or ascribing human thoughts and emotions onto animals...not from a religious or theological perspective, but from a practical and biological standpoint. To read human attributes onto a dog, for example, will inevitably result in a misinterpretation of the dog's motives, instincts and drives, and ultimately, can be very psychologically unhealthy for the animal.

[Huck]

Thanks for including rabbits! :-)

[Huck]

The mere word itself, "personality" describes the unique qualities of individual personhood...an attribute that is particular to humans.

But that is a circular absurd argument. You might as well just say we owe animals nothing because they aren't people. To say they lack "individual personality" to me implies that they lack individuality. That they are automatons. It's observably false.

I understand your point about inappropriate projection of human characteristics onto animals. That's not what we're talking about here.

[ZULU]

http://www.noahide.org/

Unnecessary cruelty to animals is against God's law.

[TSgt]

I’m sorry, the Roman Catholic church can never be taken seriously as long as the church allows someone like Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry remain active in their ranks- in good standing. Remember the sot, adulterer, and murderer Teddy K.? Did he have good standing in the RC church? Yes, I think he did. Hmmmm.

Cannon law and "words of the day" are only for lowly parishioners.

[Joe 6-pack]

"But that is a circular absurd argument. You might as well just say we owe animals nothing because they aren't people."

How so? As part of God's creation we owe them a proper amount of respect and dignity, but one that is subordinate to that given our fellow humans. Certainly we give our pets a greater deal of respect than we do a flea or a tick that we find in their coat...ergo, there is a hierarchy or strata in which we place animal life. All I'm stating is that they should never be on par, or equated with that we give our fellow humans. It can be very difficult, I know...especially when there are humans who insist on living and behaving like feral beasts...

[Huck]

How so?

They don't have personalities because they aren't people is a circular argument. It's a word game.

As part of God's creation we owe them a proper amount of respect and dignity, but one that is subordinate to that given our fellow humans.

I don't know about that. I respect the average grey squirrel more than I respect the average American. He works harder, faces more adversity, and displays far more physical ability and tenacity. He doesn't create anywhere near the problems that people create. I wish people were more like squirrels. There. I said it.

Certainly we give our pets a greater deal of respect than we do a flea or a tick that we find in their coat...ergo, there is a hierarchy or strata in which we place animal life.

That's definitely true. Then again, a tick is a threat to health. It's like a disease. If they would leave me alone, I'd leave them alone too. Further, while I am convinced beyond any doubt that mammals display individual characteristics--'someone in there'--I am not convinced that insects share this trait. I've observed insects most of my life. It's possible.

I'm not arguing for equality of all living things. Hell, I don't give chain pickeral the same respect I give large mouth bass. That's my business. I'm just saying that justifying how we treat animals by claiming they are automatons is bogus.

All I'm stating is that they should never be on par, or equated with that we give our fellow humans.

I agree. In many ways, people deserve less respect than animals. The average chipmunk deserves more respect than the average member of Congress, for example.

[dila813]

Your url doesn’t work.

I don’t dispute that torturing an animal is against God.

I dispute that labeling something cruel without evaluating the intent is in error.

Do you think that trapping is cruel? Maybe you do, but does that make it a crime against God?

I say no, the intent is what is important. The intent is to harvest not to torture the animal.

The leftest have penetrated the Catholic Dictionary.

[ArrogantBustard]

We are NOT the Almighty’s Chosen species.

Says you.

25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 29And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30And to all the beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. 31And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

Says God.

I'll stick with God. I'd suggest that you do likewise. He knows His creation better than anyone else.

[walford]

To hold a book written and edited by men as the Word of the Almighty is blasphemy.

[Joe 6-pack]

"They don't have personalities because they aren't people is a circular argument. It's a word game."

It's only a word game for people that wish to twist and redefine words to suit themselves. "Personality" refers to the qualities and traits that make a person a person. As I stated, individual animals have their own physical and behavioral qualities, but they are not persons. They may exhibit traits that suggest personality but that's merely an analog to make it easier for us to describe and communicate...it's like saying a person has a "wolf-like" appetite...we don't mean the person would literally chase down an elk with his pack and eat it raw, but there are elements of his appetite that remind us of a wolf. When we say a cat has a great "personality" we might simply mean that it's gentle, people-friendly, and calm, but those characteristics in and of themselves do not ascribe it personhood.