“To cause needless suffering to animals is contrary to human dignity,”
zenit.org
Eva
5441

Laudato Si’: The Suffering of Animals, by Marie Hendrickx - ZENIT - English

“To cause needless suffering to animals is contrary to human dignity,” said Belgian Theologian Marie Hendrickx in an article published in L’Osservato…
Ultraviolet
Oh dear, another derpy Euro-philosopher trying to ease her conscience by legislating animal products out of existence for all but the very rich.
Dr Bobus
What did she day that was wrong?
Ultraviolet
First, she's conflating humans with animals and citing Scripture as a justification where it doesn't apply. "Whatsoever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them" (Matthew 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31; Romans 13:8-10)."

She poses the question: "Is something akin applied to the animal world?" ...and my answer is, "Quote Christ verbatim if He applied it to the animal world or GTFO".

Second, …More
First, she's conflating humans with animals and citing Scripture as a justification where it doesn't apply. "Whatsoever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them" (Matthew 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31; Romans 13:8-10)."

She poses the question: "Is something akin applied to the animal world?" ...and my answer is, "Quote Christ verbatim if He applied it to the animal world or GTFO".

Second, She imparts an element of doubt where none exists to push her agenda. She writes...

"Animals in particular seem to be reduced to the category of provisions. Man can draw from it according to his needs; he can use them or even abuse them at will, as simple tools towards which there is no obligation because they themselves have no rights. The Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to confirm this view of things: "Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity" (no. 2415), and God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom He created in His own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure" (no. 2417).

No, the Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn't "seem" to confirm this view. The Catechism explicitly awards animals no greater rights than "plants and inanimate beings". The Catechism explictly allows their use "for food and clothing". That isn't a "seem" at all.

Yes, the Catechism states, "It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly (no. 2418)."

...and for animal rights activists ANY suffering (much less death) is "needless", whether for bettering human life through medical research or simply feeding and clothing the body.

If we allow people like her to set the standards for "suffer or die needlessly", they will (as such people always do) expand those standards to eliminate animal-based medical research or food/ clothing sources entirely. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Look what such activists did with abortion in Europe. What started initially with special pleading on behalf of "rape victims", has turned into on-demand abortion with pills sent by mail.

The left always introduces their next insanity by taking "small steps" with an appeal to pity and charity.

European promoters of homosexuality used this approach to first introduce their agenda back in the early 60s, notably in Britain where the practice was a crime.

What happens behind closed doors between two adults was nobody else's business, they argued. Criminalizing the practice led to the blackmailing of otherwise respectable "ordinary" people, they insisted. At the time, activists were adamant a small change in the law would NEVER lead to promoting homosexuality to children. Preposterous! Homosexuals had no interest in children at all, they insisted.

And now? Now look at LGBT Europe.

Not that you'd suggest such a thing, but this isn't a Slippery Slope fallacy when applied to animal rights activists, either. Witness the insane requirements Switzerland and Italy have adopted surrounding the transport and cooking of lobsters. Naturally, that limits the consumption, drives the price way out of the reach of ordinary diners... all exactly as intended. And once they start, they never stop.

The Vatican has been pushing this kind of "animal rights" agenda even to the point of trying to re-interpret Scripture and that's been going on as far back as Benedict XVI
Dr Bobus
She was anything but a liberal. I only met her once, but I think Don Reto knew her fairly well. If she weren't solid, she wouldn't have been working for Ratzinger at the SCDF

1. It is true that animals have no rights, but that doesn't mean that man has the right to do to them whatever thrills him--or is useful.

2. The use of the word seem is common in Moral Theology, simply because there is …More
She was anything but a liberal. I only met her once, but I think Don Reto knew her fairly well. If she weren't solid, she wouldn't have been working for Ratzinger at the SCDF

1. It is true that animals have no rights, but that doesn't mean that man has the right to do to them whatever thrills him--or is useful.

2. The use of the word seem is common in Moral Theology, simply because there is a difference between a moral principle and its particular application. St. Thomas says that the first is fairly easy to do, the second can be very difficult.
V.R.S.
I think we can start our ecumenical dialogue with Mrs/Ms Hendrickx from "animals". Here is our common ground - we can agree on the meaning of the A-word. However, I suppose that with respect to other parts of her proposition ("needless suffering", "human dignity" and yes - even "cause") we have to argue over the definitions.