for a more just relationship with animals. By Marie Hendrickx (L'Osservatore Romano) suffering that borders on the mystery, the mystery of the presence of evil in the world. This suffering is inevitable. There is another that belongs to the constitution of the creation that can be mastered. In the first case, it was assumed by Christ crucified and processed by him to become for him and for those who "follow" the path that leads to life in God. In the second case, the man is asked to not unreasonably cause and eliminate it when possible. This duty applies to all individuals and others with whom the individual is in contact. The preaching of Jesus and the apostolic writings are full of indications of this type. Suffice to cite the "rule gold "given by Jesus, which summarizes the Law and the Prophets:" Whatever ye would that men should do, hacédselo yourselves to them "(Mt 7, 12, cf. Lk 6, 31, Rom 13, 8-10 .)
Do you apply something analogous to the animal world? More precisely, is there a moral duty to avoid as much as possible the suffering of animals? One school of thought that can be called "egalitarian (for example, Peter Singer) refuses to recognize the right man any privilege with respect to other living things. According to this theory, when we are faced with two conflicting interests should prevail over the living being "endowed" that is, the better able to consciously feel pain. From this point of view, an adult would certainly take precedence over an animal, but an animal would prevail over any human being in a state of 'deficiency' comatose, mentally disabled, etc. By the same logic "egalitarian", the vital interests of an animal would have precedence over any interest of a human child.
Christian thought is in a very diverse. Its center is Christ and in him, man. Oddly enough, precisely this dignity attributed to man, some environmentalists criticize the Christian faith that only sees the environment as a framework of human activity. The animals, in particular, would be reduced to the rank of reserve. The man can use them according to their needs, you can use or even abuse them at will, as mere instruments for which it has no duty, as they do not have any rights.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to confirm this view of things. Thus, the number 2415, said: "Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of humanity past, present and future" the number 2417 yen adds: "God entrusted animals to the administration of that he created in his image. It is therefore legitimate to use animals for food and making clothes. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and his leisure. "
From there, it raises the following issues: the right to use animals for food, does the battery of raising chickens, each of which has only a space smaller than a notebook sheet ? Or calves in cages where they can neither move nor see the light, or does it keep bristles fastened with iron rings nursing position to allow a series of feeding pigs without stopping and thus grow faster?
The right to use animals for making clothes, "mean letting slowly die of hunger, thirst, cold or bleeding in the stocks, precious fur animals? The right to use animals for our leisure, does the sword-bulls after they have been tormented for a long time with flags?, Does the gutted letting horses?, Does the cats or goats released from a height of bell?
Before attempting to answer these questions, you should immediately notice the next phrase of the Catechism, which provoked strong protests, to the point that they accused of favoring the Catholic position vivisection, was changed between the first edition and the typical version official. Indeed, where the text of 1992 (n. 2417) said: "The medical and scientific experiments on animals, if kept within reasonable limits, a morally acceptable practice since it contributes to caring for or saving human lives", now reads: "The medical and scientific experimentation on animals is morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives." What makes the difference? Just the fact that "it" was replaced by an "if", ie provided that ... States no longer a priori that the medical and scientific experiments on animals contribute "to caring for or saving human lives" and, therefore, morally acceptable practice. Before you have legitimately should establish its usefulness.
Before proceeding, it should be emphasized that these reactions to the Catechism were only partly justified, because in fact the second version did nothing to clarify the meaning of the first. Assuming a priori that animal experiments were not morally permissible except to provide a service to man, it was assumed that there was previously an effort to consider such discernment. Thus, with perfect logic, we can say that the Catechism said clear criteria for solid and sensible reflection as regards the behavior that must be taken to animals: "It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly and without having to sacrifice his life" (n. 2418).
What is human dignity? Why men are superior to animals? The book of Genesis tells us that only the human species was created in the "image" and "likeness" of God (cf. Gn 1, 26). The faith of the Church often has identified this "image" with the reason, this aspect specifically human intelligence derives from a particular share in the divine intelligence (cf., for example, Gaudium et Spes, 15). Indeed, animals have an innate ability that enables them to find ingenious solutions in difficult situations, guide the media towards the goals assigned instinct. However, they are unable to take a distance from themselves to grasp an object as such or its very existence as a whole. In short, they are unable to 'intus-legere "to read in people and things.
human will also participate in a specific way on God's. Carries within itself first of all wish to find in him their implementation. Since its birth, is primarily oriented towards the good. But since it is supported by an intelligence able to distance, is free, ie, capable of adhering to the desire of your bag or give it up to be seduced by real children, passengers, selfish, partial, and to seek immediate gratification, regardless of its consequences for future or for others. It is the drama of sin.
have (at least virtually) the ability to perceive and behave like an "I" versus a "you" is specific to man. In his Son, God formed man as a person, therefore, as your partner, but do not know how he keeps the Lord is with regard to the weakest and most disabled among us. Moreover, from This truism can be sure that somehow God makes room for the free response of each (cf., for a similar case, Gaudium et Spes, 22).
If our dignity consists in being like God, hence follows that the more we behave like God, the more we are ourselves. It can and should also give thanks to God for the beauty of a goat, a cat or a dog, and the beauty of the sun, moon and rain (cf. Canticle of the Creatures). But not only. The "Little Flowers" also referred to the episode of the Wolf of Gubbio. This beast was terrorizing the entire region. The people asked Francisco to intervene and he did a pact with the animal: the farmers would feed it and, instead, he will not charge at their cattle. "And while Francis extended his hand to welcome his commitment, the wolf lifted his right front leg and gently placed it on his hand" (Fioretti, chap. 21).
This indicates that holiness, reconciliation with God, represents an attractive force that pulls to create a movement of reconciliation in general. This is what Scripture clearly suggests. Are we not the prophet Isaiah describes the messianic era: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, calf and the young will feed together, and a little child shall lead them. (...) The infant Delving into the hole of the asp (...) because the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea "(Is 11, 6-9)? The "knowledge of the Lord" ... The Hebrew word evokes something carnal, as a communion of life and knowledge of the Lord means to become in some way consubstantial with him. That also means being perfectly reconciled with creation.
harmony with the Creator recovered thanks to the messianic child will result in a new harmony with creation to which the animal belongs. At the time of the meeting final with the Beloved, our hearts will be similar to yours, so that all our affections after at humble, he will find his place
purified, and just sorted it. For God, nothing human can be lost, even the links we have established with the animal creatures, who lived by example our loneliness.
If it stands, it is necessary to repeat with the Catechism, which man has no justification for "making unnecessary suffering to animals" and therefore should not be paying if you can avoid it, even if no serious reasons to do so. Indeed, the duty to feed their own families or large population groups can justify it, but not profit as the sole reason. In addition, the pleasure experienced the suffering of a living being is always unhealthy.
The physical suffering is the sensitive sign of an attack against life, life is revealed as the biological support of relationships. However, although it seems a bit schematic, relationships can be of two kinds: those that are with people and we have with the beings are not persons. A being with whom we can relate considering an end is a person, human or divine.
An attack against life, suffering inflicted on the human being as an end in itself, is not morally justifiable except that it allows to make the sufferer (and eventually others) to live better, increasing and improving their relationships, nearer to God. In the case of animal suffering can not legitimately be inflicted except under similar conditions.
The dynamics of relationships in the world has been corrupted by sin. The Christian, in their struggle against sin, will tend to renew their sense of grace, love, fair to all living beings.
This observation may help clarify the problem of the shows that involve violence against animals. Often it comes to parties of color and movement, and understood that the crowds are fascinated by the spectacle of human intelligence over brute force prevails and unleashed. It is also understood that they can derive a sense of solidarity, common emotion that seems to justify the sacrifice of the animal and the danger to humans. But what is real solidarity, a true rapprochement between people? Is there truly a collective purification of aggression? If true, the theory of "catharsis," a much more peaceful society would multiply the more brutal performances. Now we all know what happens just the opposite. If this is the situation, we need to implement all means to obtain what is the value of the show, but at the cost of the animal and without undue risk to humans.
Because, if holiness leads to reconciliation with nature, is probably well understood reconciliation with nature in turn favors better relations with God. Or, if the right relationship with God makes just about people and volunteers to animals, kindness to animals could then awaken the human heart feelings of admiration and praise for the great work of the Creator of universe.
