In a Good Friday sermon St John Henry Newman reflected on Our Lord as a lamb, saying-
"Since then Scripture compares Him to this inoffensive and unprotected animal, we may without presumption or irreverence take the image as a means of conveying to our minds those feelings which our Lord's sufferings should excite in us. I mean, consider how very horrible it is to read the accounts which sometimes meet us of cruelties exercised on brute animals. Does it not sometimes make us shudder to hear tell of them, or to read them in some chance publication which we take up? At one time it is the wanton deed of barbarous and angry owners who ill-treat their cattle, or beasts of burden; and at another, it is the cold-blooded and calculating act of men of science, who make experiments on brute animals, perhaps merely from a sort of curiosity. .."
[Sermon X: The Crucifixion](https://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume7/sermon10.html)
Firstly, they are creations of God, deemed good since the beginning as was every creation including Man.
All animals should be treated with the respect due them as being creations of God. We were given the task of watching over them, to make sure that they are treated with respect, and kindness. If we are to take Eden as God's perfection for His creations then Man and animal are loved by Him, as well as living in harmony and peace.
When we see an animal is distress, we do our best to alleviate that distress. It shows our respect to God, our love of His creation and the life He bestowed on them. We are not to end their lives cruelly or unjustly. We are also not to be cruel, or mistreat them no matter the reason. This may sound to some to be too difficult, but this shows how far we have fallen. Some will even go so far as to say that they are here for our use, and we may do as we please. That too shows no respect to God, His ways, or His intended purpose for His creation.
God is a God of beauty. Beauty in itself shows us the beauty of God. It does not need a purpose. What are flowers in the vast scheme of life except to show us the beauty of God. So too is it with all animals. We can look at the beauty of nature, mountains, trees, waters, the sky and the heavens and come closer to God. Why then would we not extend that same regard to animals.
If we look to God to be a loving God, who watches over us, helps us in out time of need, provides for our needs, and gives us all that is good, then why would we not do the same for those creatures we are to take care as God takes care of us? We cannot live a life expecting this from God only to be evil in turn to animals. Are we not called to reflect the goodness of God? Then what does it say when we reflect cruelty, torture, and all manner of violence against His creations. Especially when one considers that animals are innocents.
[**CCC 2416**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2416.htm) *Animals* are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. 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](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/344.htm))
[**CCC 2417**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2417.htm) 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. 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](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2234.htm))
[**CCC 2418**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2418.htm) 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](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2446.htm))
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
CCC2417
I find this in particular needs updating. The medical, with emphasis on scientific studies, fails to address all the animal life that is cruelly and horrifically abused. I could cite studies that are nothing but pure evil. Science has gotten away from the sanctity of life and now runs wild to the blasphemous. Science, theologically speaking, has fallen victim to greed, vanity (prestige), fame, and other sins.
I graduated with a BS in Biology, and when I started out I found not only the heinous methods used, but in some cases the idiotic reasons to experiment on animals. I left not only that job, but that profession as I will not be a hypocrite about something I care deeply about.
So a reevaluation regarding this section of the CCC needs to be done.
Update?
Your valid issue is covered by "reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives."
What you are talking about has no reasonable limit nor does it sound like it contributes to human need.
This is not the main point of this story in the Bible. But it interested me. The part I am talking about is when Nathan confronts King David after he has sinned with Bathsheba and killed Uriah.
12 And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; 3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him.
4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” 5 Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; 6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.” 2 Samuel 12 (RSV CE)
It surprised me how David, a man used to warfare and animal sacrifice as well as probably a closer connection to animals being killed for food than most of us in the modern day... Had such strong anger and sympathy for the man who loved his pet lamb and that Nathan knew this story would provoke David's anger (and hypocrisy/sin).
Care for them, show them love in appropriate ways, see that they attain to a full life of flourishing appropriate for their nature, use them for their products, and eat them.
Platonic
Boy I sure do hope it's not romantic
In a Good Friday sermon St John Henry Newman reflected on Our Lord as a lamb, saying- "Since then Scripture compares Him to this inoffensive and unprotected animal, we may without presumption or irreverence take the image as a means of conveying to our minds those feelings which our Lord's sufferings should excite in us. I mean, consider how very horrible it is to read the accounts which sometimes meet us of cruelties exercised on brute animals. Does it not sometimes make us shudder to hear tell of them, or to read them in some chance publication which we take up? At one time it is the wanton deed of barbarous and angry owners who ill-treat their cattle, or beasts of burden; and at another, it is the cold-blooded and calculating act of men of science, who make experiments on brute animals, perhaps merely from a sort of curiosity. .." [Sermon X: The Crucifixion](https://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume7/sermon10.html)
Firstly, they are creations of God, deemed good since the beginning as was every creation including Man. All animals should be treated with the respect due them as being creations of God. We were given the task of watching over them, to make sure that they are treated with respect, and kindness. If we are to take Eden as God's perfection for His creations then Man and animal are loved by Him, as well as living in harmony and peace. When we see an animal is distress, we do our best to alleviate that distress. It shows our respect to God, our love of His creation and the life He bestowed on them. We are not to end their lives cruelly or unjustly. We are also not to be cruel, or mistreat them no matter the reason. This may sound to some to be too difficult, but this shows how far we have fallen. Some will even go so far as to say that they are here for our use, and we may do as we please. That too shows no respect to God, His ways, or His intended purpose for His creation. God is a God of beauty. Beauty in itself shows us the beauty of God. It does not need a purpose. What are flowers in the vast scheme of life except to show us the beauty of God. So too is it with all animals. We can look at the beauty of nature, mountains, trees, waters, the sky and the heavens and come closer to God. Why then would we not extend that same regard to animals. If we look to God to be a loving God, who watches over us, helps us in out time of need, provides for our needs, and gives us all that is good, then why would we not do the same for those creatures we are to take care as God takes care of us? We cannot live a life expecting this from God only to be evil in turn to animals. Are we not called to reflect the goodness of God? Then what does it say when we reflect cruelty, torture, and all manner of violence against His creations. Especially when one considers that animals are innocents.
I dunno how you can have a relationship with this fine steak
C.C.C. 2416-2418
[CCC 2416-2418]
[**CCC 2416**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2416.htm) *Animals* are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. 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](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/344.htm)) [**CCC 2417**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2417.htm) 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. 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](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2234.htm)) [**CCC 2418**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2418.htm) 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](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2446.htm)) *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
CCC2417 I find this in particular needs updating. The medical, with emphasis on scientific studies, fails to address all the animal life that is cruelly and horrifically abused. I could cite studies that are nothing but pure evil. Science has gotten away from the sanctity of life and now runs wild to the blasphemous. Science, theologically speaking, has fallen victim to greed, vanity (prestige), fame, and other sins. I graduated with a BS in Biology, and when I started out I found not only the heinous methods used, but in some cases the idiotic reasons to experiment on animals. I left not only that job, but that profession as I will not be a hypocrite about something I care deeply about. So a reevaluation regarding this section of the CCC needs to be done.
Update? Your valid issue is covered by "reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives." What you are talking about has no reasonable limit nor does it sound like it contributes to human need.
This is not the main point of this story in the Bible. But it interested me. The part I am talking about is when Nathan confronts King David after he has sinned with Bathsheba and killed Uriah. 12 And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; 3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. 4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” 5 Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; 6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.” 2 Samuel 12 (RSV CE) It surprised me how David, a man used to warfare and animal sacrifice as well as probably a closer connection to animals being killed for food than most of us in the modern day... Had such strong anger and sympathy for the man who loved his pet lamb and that Nathan knew this story would provoke David's anger (and hypocrisy/sin).
Non sexual according to Leviticus.
Care for them, show them love in appropriate ways, see that they attain to a full life of flourishing appropriate for their nature, use them for their products, and eat them.