Expert: J.M.J. West - 4/1/2008

Question
QUESTION: I'm not 100% sure I know what my United Methodist background says about
this topic, I am a strong believer in the fact that ALL living creatures; cats,
dogs, birds, cattle, etc. have souls and thus go to Heaven when they die. My
husband was raised Catholic and doesn't believe this is so. I've done my
research and found that in the Bible the text alludes to my point saying that
God breathed life into all creation, just like he did to humanity. I've also found
that Pope John Paul (I don't know which number he was) stated that animals
go to heaven. I've told my husband these things but he's still sceptic about
this topic. Is there anything you know of in the ancient texts that can prove
my point; that animals DO have souls?

ANSWER: Ecclesiastes 3:21 "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"

Well, first off, you really have to define "soul".  In the classical understanding of the soul as the form of the matter which comprises the body, all living things (plants included) have souls.  Souls are what direct the matter towards it's ends.  But there would be a distinction between "kinds" of souls: vegetative (able to grow and consume), animal (able to move about and use varying forms of cognitive ability), and rational (unique insofar as we are aware to mankind).  Plato thought this; Aristotle thought this; Thomas Aquinas thought this...as did just about everyone before folks like Descartes.

The last one (rational) is immortal; the former two are not.  Animals do have souls, but they are not "created in the image and likeness of God" and do not have rational souls.

BUT, that said, this does not mean that animals may not still be in heaven.  Animals are companions for mankind on this earth, and in many ways they enrich our lives; it is not inconceivable that one of the glories and beauties of heaven is that old Fido may very well be there in the fullness of all goodness, because his very life on this earth was a participation in that goodness (if that makes sense).  Fido's presence would not be - however - because he is Fido per se, but because he was loved by one in heaven.  This is a permissible belief.

Animals are an important part of creation, and they are "good" in the eyes of God.  But they are in a sense created for us, and not us for them.  They are below us.

Hope that helps!

Pax Christi,

-J.M.J. West

PS: The Catechism says this:

Respect for the integrity of creation

   2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. [Cf. Gen 128-31] Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation. [Cf. CA 37-38] [226, 358, 373, 378]

   2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. [Cf. Mt 6:26; Dan 3:79-81] Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. [344]

   2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. [Cf. Gen 2:19-20; 9:1-4] Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives. [2234]

   2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. [2446]


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: If I may, how does the book "Ismael"-in your opinion-come across on this topic? I've read it and find it to be very enlightening and supportive of my beliefs. Though it's a work of fiction, do you see any kernel of truth in what the book proposes?

Answer
Thanks for the great feed back; I'm afraid I'll not fare so well on this question as I've not read that book (though I am familiar with the premise and have had it recommended to me previously).  If you care to elaborate more on what you believe the book to be saying, I could comment on that.

The notion of a select few (takers) seeking to rule over others and viewing themselves as the pinnacles of creation is certainly dangerous; I also think it's dangerous to view religion as merely a story, which the book - from the wikipedia summary - seems to do.  But the idea of the takers and their conquest of nature is very much in the same vein as what Tolkien was shooting for in his character Saruman.

Alas, I'll limit myself to that at this time, but I might come back and edit this in the future.  I just requested the book off of Inter-Library Loan.

Pax Christi,

-J.M.J. West