The Catechism says “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.” My question is “What does this mean for me loving my pets, and does it mean spending money on them is wrong”? Can you explain this passage? – Christopher

Dear Christopher,

I confess that this item in the catechism had never come to my attention. I think the issue of causing animals to suffer or die needlessly not the issue you want addressed, because there is a certain self-evidence to that. 2418 comes in the context of the 7th commandment and more specifically the Church’s social doctrine – specifically here under Respect for the integrity of creation. The next title is The Social Doctrine of the Church.

Probably the point being made is in the more global context of the billions of dollars spent each year in NA on pet foods etc in comparison to the funds released for aid to the poor internationally. And on a personal level, what is our practical concern for the poor? Now for the catechism statement: “One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.” I myself like pets – there is nothing quite as loyal as a dog! I would take the statement as one instance of the general statement that Jesus makes to his disciples, for instance, in Mt 10:37-39.:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;
and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

In the passage the point that is being made is that human affective ties must not interfere with commitment to Christ, That God in Christ is truly front and center in our lives as Christians. And all other (human) loves have their place in relation to the absolute of God in our lives. The same point was made by Jesus in the passage about the rich young man. In that incident (Mark 10:17-22), why did Jesus demand of the young man what he does not seem to ask of some others in the gospel? It looks as if Jesus perceived that, for this man, his undue attachment to his possessions was so great that it was an obstacle to faith commitment. In this case what is clear is that the believer must be free of wealth in the sense that possessions must not limit his perspective. He must be ready to let go if it constitutes an obstacle to faith – as it did in the case of the rich young man.

In none of these cases does it mean that we are not to love our parents, or son or daughter – the point being strongly made is that all our loves and human ties must be in and within our love relationship to God. In fact it is in our relationship to God, that we most likely love one another correctly – but these created loves must never replace God.

In the catechism statement, I think it is fairly clear that love and care for pets has a place – obviously that love should not displace or take precedence over love for family and friends – and should be integrated within our vision of faith where God is always first.

On a practical level, care for and appreciate the loyalty of your pet – all within the context of your prior faith-love relationship to God as well as your love for family and friends. I don’t think it means you have to spend a lot of time trying to weigh all that in your mind and heart. Keep on trying to develop you relationship with God and enjoy your pet.

aka Fr. Ray C.Ss.R.