Sport Hunting

[Balthazor]

what if it is for a pelt?

[cmotherofpirl]

I think the same thing would apply, are you using to for a useful purpose or entertainment? I have a fox wrap, the dude was eating our chickens. THat is the legitimate reason for having a pelt. I also have a sealskin fur that was my grandmas. That was probably not made for a legitimate reason - vanity. That one I won't wear. [ although it would be useful for the next ice age]

[Balthazor]

interesting.....I was just wondering at the usefulness, see where I draw the line is if it isn't useful (decoration only) then why do you have it?
If it is a coat to keep you warm...that I can see.

I suppose that it all comes down to intentions, it always does.

[crusader1234]

WOW!

I really like this thread, partially because I'm very opinionated on the topic, and partially because its something that Ironmonk and Cmom seem to agree with me on!

I believe hunting for sport is a mortal sin. Lets just get that clear, because I tend to be convoluted sometimes.

Now, hunting for sport is a lot different than hunting for food. Hunting for food is definately not a mortal sin, and is - very much so - an example of good stewardship. Hunting for food is also a good alternative to cruel treatment of animals being raised on farms and being injected with hormones and all that (Thanks to Jen for already pointing this out!). So, if you are hunting for food, that's fine. There is an exception here though, in that if you are hunting out of season, hunting without liscense, using cruel and stupid tricks to lure animals, then it - although not neccesarily mortal - is a sin.

Hunting for sport (for example, foxhunting - let me see you eat a fox... didn't think so), is most certainly a mortal sin. Ironmonk and Cmom have both posted lots of evidence to support this. The idea of killing, or indirectly killing - ex. using dogs - an animal simply for entertainment, thrill, or decoration, is cruel. In my opinion, it transcends the sin of being a bad steward. Killing a fox (or any other animal) simply out of bloodlust in the search of a thrill or decoration is simply wrong.

Rich

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would also like to comment just very briefly.

In general, I think Ironmonk has been very clear, and has made the point logically. The argument that releasing a fox and dogs would not be sinful because it is not "you" doing the action, and the dogs/fox are just being natural is not an argument that holds much water. First and foremost, by releasing the dogs/fox will full foreknowledge of what the consequence will be puts us in material cooperation with the act. Because the action consists of unnecessary pain to the fox, and we are called to be Stewards of God's Creation, we become culpable for our position of material cooperation. If the fox needed to die (even, perhaps, to feed the dogs) then the human has the obligation to bring about its death in the least painful way possible.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 24 2004, 06:04 PM'] Why is it a sin for the dogs to kill the tiger or other animal? What was to be done before guns? You would have to load the thing up with many arrows or at least once you gte it down, try to stab it to death or behead it, would you not? Is that immoral? [/quote]
That's a good question. In the days when the Native Americans hunted for food, they killed their food with arrows and spears. If it was the only methods they had, I don't think it'd be sinful. In that case, the suffering of the animals wasn't needless. The meat was necessary for food. Besides, I don't think it'd be overly painful for an animal to die from arrows or spears. The animal could be brought down (and even killed) with one shot or throw, and if he wasn't dead when the hunter approached him, the hunter could swiftly put him out of his misery with a quick jab to the throat. Plus, didn't more than one Native American hunt larger animals? There'd be a lot more arrows or spears in that case, so it'd seem like it'd be quick.

God bless,

Jen

[Dreamweaver]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Nov 25 2004, 06:03 AM'] That's a good question. In the days when the Native Americans hunted for food, they killed their food with arrows and spears. If it was the only methods they had, I don't think it'd be sinful. In that case, the suffering of the animals wasn't needless. The meat was necessary for food. Besides, I don't think it'd be overly painful for an animal to die from arrows or spears. The animal could be brought down (and even killed) with one shot or throw, and if he wasn't dead when the hunter approached him, the hunter could swiftly put him out of his misery with a quick jab to the throat. Plus, didn't more than one Native American hunt larger animals? There'd be a lot more arrows or spears in that case, so it'd seem like it'd be quick.

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
I know that many tribes of plains Native Americans would hunt bison by chasing them off of a cliff. After they're lying at the base of the cliff, with broken bones, they'd club them to put them out of their misery.

I'm not saying whether it was ethical or not, but you could almost consider it their way of mass-slaughter in order to get large quantities of meat (and other products they got from bison).

How other cultures treat animals is a whole different debate topic....

When I first voted in the poll, I was defining sport hunting as hunting, but using the meat from whatever you hunted. As far as safari hunts are concerned, I really wouldn't know if it would be a mortal sin or not. Yes, one could consider it vanity, as in, "Look at this pelt I got in Kenya this summer!", and also wasteful, considering how much it costs to get equipped, travel, and purchase your tags. Many exotic animals that hunters try bagging are endangered, and are shot on "hunting preserves."

Hunting and ethics is also a whole 'nuther topic.

[crusader1234]

[quote]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.195 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.196

2416
Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417
God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 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.

2418
[b]It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly[/b]. 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.


195. Cf. Gen 1:28-31.
196. Cf. CA 37-38.
197. Cf. Mt 6:26; Dan 3:79-81.
198. Cf. Gen 2:19-20; 9:1-4.
[/quote]

I think Ironmonk provided ample information in support of saying that sport-hunting is a sin.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 24 2004, 10:40 PM'] bro....

I've shown a lot more than that and you know it. Sounds like you are trying to rationalize it. It reminds me of people who try to rationalize a mortal sin by trying to convience themselves that it's venial because they "feel compelled" to do it.

The hunters kill the fox with their dogs.

It's needless killing and suffering toward the fox. If there was a need for the foxes pelt, it would be stupid to let dogs put holes in it with their teeth... You should really think of your rebutals before using them.

Strawmen blow away in the slightest breeze of truth bro.

Do you actually believe what you are posting?

It's your soul... rationalize sin if you must... fox hunting the english way is a sin.... so is bull fighting (shoving swords in the back of the bull as it passing for entertainment... letting it bleed to death)... or killing anything for the sake of killing or decoration... unless you can show me a "need" for decoration.

Rationalizing and looking at the Churches teaching as liberally as you possibly can will lead you down a dark path... it did Luther, Calvin, Knox... etc...

There is nothing more to be said.


God Bless, You're in my prayers,
ironmonk [/quote]
First, I have no need to rationalize anything. I've never been fox hunting, nor do I plan on going.

Second, I don't disagree that to kill and animal for no reason whatsoever would be wrong. We agree on this. Perhaps I have been unclear.

Third, What I am disagreeing with is your broad accusation against fox hunting and your narrow view of what is and is not useful.

You have made many broad accusations and then asserted certain moral norms as true (which I agree with), but you have failed to do is sufficiently connect the two. Can you provide any condemnations of bullfighting or fox hunting? They are (or were) certainly common enough to have attracted the attention of the Magisterium. All I'm saying is that I don't think you can make such sweeping statements.

Lastly, your assertion that my statements here will lead me down the path taken by Luther et al., is patently absurd. There is no doctrine of Holy Mother Church that I am questioning. As I said above, do you know of any condemnations of these forms of hunting, in themselves? What I am questioning is your very broad application of a teaching that I agree with as much as you.

[crusader1234]

Fox hunting and bull fighting are cruel to animals, and totally useless outside of their entertainment values - which are highly questionable and border on the sadistic. Where do you find the value in them that makes them useful? If you cannot make a firm argument for why they would be useful, I think that it is cruelty to animals. It not only is it bad stewardship, it is cruel.

[CatholicCrusader]

PSPX, I believe the Church actually has condemned bullfighting. I heard that from a reliable source. She also condemned, which is from the same source, the warfare in which the army shoots thousands of arrows up in the air, which leads to an unneccesarily large loss of life. Now, I have not fully researched this, but it came from a gookd source.

[popestpiusx]

Good source? Show me the money. I'll believe it when I see it (and I honestly mean that). If you can show me where it has been condemned, I will assent to it immediately.

[cmotherofpirl]

Cruelty to Animals

The first ethical writers of pagan antiquity to advocate the duty
of kindness towards the brute creation were Pythagoras and
Empedocles. Holding the doctrine of metempsychosis, or the
transmigration of human souls into the bodies of lower animals
after death, these philosophers taught that animals share in human
rights, and that it is a crime to kill them. These ideas, together
with an appreciation of the services rendered by domestic animals
to man, found some expression in early Roman legislation. The
error of ascribing human rights to animals is condemned by Cicero
(De Finibus, bk. III, xx). The Old Testament inculcates kindness
towards animals. The Jews were forbidden to muzzle the ox that
treads out the corn (Deut. 25:4) or to yolk together an ox and an
ass (ibid. 22:10). Some other texts which are frequently quoted as
instances are not so much to recommend kind treatment of animals
as to insist upon duties of neighbourly goodwill. The prohibition
against seething the kid in its mother's milk, a process in which
there is no cruelty at all, and the one against taking a mother-
bird with her young, seem to have a religious rather than a
humanitarian significance.

The New Testament is almost silent on this subject. Even when St.
Paul cites the Mosaic prohibition against muzzling the ox, he
brushes aside the literal in favour of a symbolic signification (I
Cor. 9:9 sq.). The Fathers of the Church insist but little on this
point of duty. Nevertheless, Christian teaching and practice from
the beginning resect in a general way the Scriptural ideal of
righteousness which is expressed in the words: "The just regardeth
the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel"
(Prov. 12:10). The hagiological literature of monastic life in the
Middle Ages, which so largely formed and guided the moral
sentiment of the Christian world, as Lecky sets forth with ample
evidence, "represents one of the most striking efforts made in
Christendom to inculcate a feeling of kindness and pity towards
the brute creation" (History of European Morals from Augustus to
Charlemagne, II, 161 sqq.). This considerate feeling was a
characteristic of many holy personages, even before St. Francis of
Assisi and some of his followers carried it to a degree that seems
almost incredible.

The scholastic theologians condemn the infliction of needless
suffering on animals, chiefly because of the injurious effects on
the character of the perpetrator. Thus St. Thomas, in his "Summa
Contra Gentiles" (bk. II, cxii), after refuting the error that it
is not lawful to take the lives of brutes, explains the import of
the above-mentioned texts of Scripture. He says that these
prohibitions are issued either

lest anyone by exercising cruelty towards brutes may become cruel
also towards men; or, because an injury to brutes may result in
loss to the owner, or on account of some symbolic signification.

Elsewhere (Summa Theologica I-II:102:6. ad 8um) he states that
God's purpose in recommending kind treatment of the brute creation
is to dispose men to pity and tenderness for one another. While
the scholastics rest their condemnation of cruelty to animals on
its demoralizing influence, their general teaching concerning the
nature of man's rights and duties furnishes principles which have
but to be applied in order to establish the direct and essential
sinfulness of cruelty to the animal world, irrespective of the
results of such conduct on the character of those who practise it.

Catholic ethics has been criticized by some zoophilists because it
refuses to admit that animals have rights. But it is indisputable
that, when properly understood and fairly judged, Catholic
doctrine, though it does not concede rights to the brute creation,
denounces cruelty to animals as vigorously and as logically as do
those moralists who make our duty in this respect the correlative
of a right in the animals. In order to establish a binding
obligation to avoid the wanton infliction of pain on the brutes,
it is not necessary to acknowledge any right inherent in them. Our
duty in this respect is part of our duty towards God. From the
juristic standpoint the visible world with which man comes in
contact is divided into persons and non-persons. For the latter
term the word "things" is usually employed. Only a person, that
is, a being possessed of reason and self-control, can be the
subject of rights and duties; or, to express the same idea in
terms more familiar to adherents of other schools of thought, only
beings who are ends in themselves, and may not be treated as mere
means to the perfection of other beings, can possess rights.
Rights and duties are moral ties which can exist only in a moral
being, or person. Beings that may be treated simply as means to
the perfection of persons can have no rights, and to this category
the brute creation belongs. In the Divine plan of the universe the
lower creatures are subordinated to the welfare of man. But while
these animals are, in contradistinction to persons, classed as
things, it is none the less true that between them and the non-
sentient world there exists a profound difference of nature which
we are bound to consider in our treatment of them. The very
essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order
established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler
manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of
material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient
nature capable of suffering--a nature which the animal shares in
common with ourselves--God placed on our dominion over them a
restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over
the non-sentient world. We are bound to act towards them in a
manner conformable to their nature. We may lawfully use them for
our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of
them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. But the wanton
infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need,
and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is
therefore sinful. This principle, by which, at least in the
abstract, we may solve the problem of the lawfulness of
vivisection and other cognate questions, is tersely put by
Zigliara:

The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute
animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats
the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right
of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and
the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p.
136).

With more feeling, but with no less exactness, the late Cardinal
Manning expressed the same doctrine:

It is perfectly true that obligations and duties are between moral
persons, and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of
the moral obligations which we owe to one another; but we owe a
seven-fold obligation to the Creator of those animals. Our
obligation and moral duty is to Him who made them and if we wish
to know the limit and the broad outline of our obligation, I say
at once it is His nature and His perfections, and among these
perfections one is, most profoundly, that of Eternal Mercy. And
therefore, although a poor mule or a poor horse is not, indeed, a
moral person, yet the Lord and Maker of the mule is the highest
Lawgiver, and His nature is a law unto Himself. And in giving a
dominion over His creatures to man, He gave it subject to the
condition that it should be used in conformity to His perfections
which is His own law, and therefore our law (The Zoophilist,
London, 1 April, 1887).

While Catholic ethical doctrine insists upon the merciful
treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on
the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men. Nor
does it approve of unduly magnifying, to the neglect of higher
duties, our obligations concerning animals. Excessive fondness for
them is no sure index of moral worth; it may be carried to un-
Christian excess; and it can coexist with grave laxity in far more
important matters. There are many imitators of Schopenhauer, who
loved his dog and hated his kind.

JAMES J. FOX
Transcribed by Rick McCarty

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1996 by
New Advent, Inc., P.O. Box 281096, Denver, Colorado, USA, 80228.
(knight@knight.org) Taken from the New Advent Web Page
(www.knight.org/advent).

[crusader1234]

Yeah that...

[SirMyztiq]

If God created everything on this earth. I wouldn't be surprised for it not to be a sin.

Other than that sport hunting is worthless and should be stopped. The killing of animals for our own selfish purposes and pleasure is unecessary.

Humans-the only animal that I know of that will cause it's own extinction.