Category: Moral Theology

A reader writes:

How much is “too much” to spend on a cat? One of mine was diagnosed with diabetes. Just today I learned that human insulin isn’t working so I’m going to try cow insulin, which is $78 per bottle. I don’t feel like I should just let K’Ehleyr wither away and die. I think an organ transplant or chemotherapy would be crossing the line for a pet. But daily medecine? At what point is the cost too high? I’d really like some advice.

First, K’Ehleyr is a way cool name for a cat.

Second, here is the passage of the Catechism that is most relevant to the issue at hand:

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. 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.

2416 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.

2417 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, if it remains within reasonable limits, is a morally acceptable practice since it contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

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.

The above passage gestures toward the principle articulated elsewhere among Catholic theologians that animals are not the subject of “rights,” as humans are. As a result, they do not have a right to life or a right to medical care or other, similar rights. We should treat them with kindness, but the reasons for doing so have to do with respecting God’s handiwork and nurturing our own sense of compassion rather than respecting the rights of an animal.

There isn’t a hard-and-fast amount that is “too much” to spend on a cat or any other kind of pet. The amount that is appropriate depends on your means and the amount of benefit the cat brings to you and/or your family. If your means are very small then only a small amount of money would count as too much. If your means are large then a much larger amount of money would be needed before it was too much. Similarly, if the pet brings very little enjoyment to you and your family (e.g., a pet cricket the kids barely remember to feed) then less money would count as too much, while if it brings a great deal of enjoyment to you and your family (e.g., a playful puppy or kitten) then more money would be needed to count as too much.

When facing a situation where medical treatment will not cure an animal, several additional questions need to be asked:

1) Is the amount of care I/we have to give the animal on an ongoing basis (e.g., giving it a regular diabetes shot, if that is what they do with cats) going to take time away from other things of importance? Will it diminish the enjoyment we get from the pet? Will it pain and confuse the pet on a regular basis? How will it affect our relationship with the pet?

2) How much will this treatment really relieve the suffering of the pet? Will it only prolong the animal’s suffering or will it allow it to live in relative comfort?

3) Given the facts of the situation, which would be more compassionate to the animal and to the family: Allowing a period of protracted illness or putting the animal to sleep and getting it over quickly?

Ultimately, the determination of what should be done in a given situation is up to those who know the situation best, but I hope these considerations are of help in thinking it through.

A reader writes:

What is the best response to someone who asks, “Why didn’t Jesus condemn slavery?”

I would point out several things:

1. The Gospels do not offer us an exhaustive record of what Jesus said and did, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that he condemned slavery in a way not recorded in Scripture.

2. He did implant in his Church an implicit rejection of slavery that flowered in later years. Thus the New Testament speak of slavery in negative ways in a variety of contexts. St. Paul counsels slaves who can obtain their freedom to do so (1 Cor. 7:21). He warns masters to treat their slaves kindly lest Jesus treat them harshly (Eph. 6:9). He stresses the equality of slaves and free before God (Gal. 3:28). And he devotes an entire epistle (Philemon) to the subject of God’s compassion for the slave.

3. Slavery was deeply embedded in Mediterranean culture, and the early Church was a tiny, persecuted minority that had no chance of eliminating slavery in the short term. Therefore, since the New Testament is addressed to first century Christians, it is primarily focused on enabling new converts (both slave and free) to live together in harmony until such time as its implicit anti-slavery current could flower and slaves everywhere would be given the opportunity to gain their freedom.

4. Christianity’s compassion for the slave was well recognized at the time, and Christianity spread rapidly among slaves, who were specifically excluded from the rites of many contemporary religious groups. In the eyes of some, Christianity was perceived to a significant degree as “a slave religion.”

5. According to some early Church sources, the slave who is the subject of Philemon (Onesimus) later appears to have become a bishop. He may have played a crucial role in preserving and collecting St. Paul’s epistles (one of which directly concerned himself), and thus we may owe the formation of the New Testament as we have it to a former slave.

A reader takes exception down yonder with my analysis of Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement regarding voting for pro-abort politicians:

There is a logical error in the numbers presented. Even a pro-life candidate has a chance of preventing only a small portion of those abortions. For example, he could through support of information requirement laws require more women at abortuaries to know the full facts about their children in utero. That will probably prevent some abortions. But he can’t overturn Roe v. Wade. That can only be done by SCOTUS and they are appointed, not voted in. And most judges with a pro-life stance are strict constructionists, not activists, and thus unlikely even in the case of unjust and illogical rulings to overturn the decisions of previous judges for fear of dangerous precedent. (Just think of the can of worms opened when judges can overturn each others rulings willy-nilly.) So the pro-life candidate is saving far few lives than the millions listed. The Six million over the course of a four year term will be the same, give or take a few thousand.

I appreciate the reader’s thoughtfulness and the charity with which she wrote her post. However, what I wrote does not contain the logical flaw that she has in mind. Let me explain . . .

The reader is indeed correct that in the short term the death toll would only be reduced by a few thousand kids during a president’s four year term. It also is true that the president cannot act unilaterally to end abortion but can only appoint Supreme Court justices who–in all probability–would not declare a legal right to life but merely overturn the legal right to abortion and re-allow states to legislate the question. We would then be facing a long, hard fight that would last decades in order to get legislation re-passed to protect the unborn. It would be long past the president’s term in office before the abortion holocaust ended.

This multi-decade legislative fight is the most likely way that abortion in America will be ended. It is difficult to imagine any other practical scenario. Indeed, it will take decades to educate the moral consciences of voters to the point that they will be willing to elect lawmakers with the pro-life spine to enact the laws needed to protect the unborn. Though there are other scenarios which are theoretically possible (e.g., passing a constitutional amendment), the one described above is by far the most likely one.

The key to that scenario is having a Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe (et al.) and that will not happen until presidents appoint the number of justices sufficient to provide 5 votes to overturn. Barring the extremely unforeseen, that will not happen as long as a pro-abort president is in office. Thus each time a pro-abort president is in office, it effective extends the abortion holocaust by delaying the overturning of Roe.

If one averages the effect of presidential appointments to SCOTUS, the net effect is that the abortion holocaust extends by one year on average for each year a pro-abort president spends in office. If an average president has 1.5 terms in office (half the recent presidents having one term; half having two) then each pro-abort president will extend the abortion holocaust for an average of six years by delaying the time when Roe is overturned. With 1.5 million kids being murdered each year abortion, that’s an average of nine million deaths attributable to the the actions of a pro-abort president due to whom he appoints to the Court.

Thus, if you look again at what I wrote, you will note that I spoke in terms of a pro-abort president extending the abortion holocaust, not of a pro-life president ending it during his term. Short-term, the number of deaths would not change appreciably, but pro-life presidents must be elected in order to get the SCOTUS appointments needed to allow the process of ending abortion to begin.

Each time a pro-abort president is elected, it extends the abortion holocaust by one or two presidential terms.

What I want to know is what the ostensibly pro-life people who voted for these presidents will say on judgment day to the souls of the nine million additional babies died because the abortion holocaust was extended because of their votes for pro-abort presidents.

Somehow I don’t think that the babies will agree that it was justifiable for voters to allow their lives to be taken because the abortion holocaust was extended so that particular social programs and policies (e.g., regarding jobs, education, taxes, welfare, immigration) could be sought.

I suspect that, to borrow words from Our Lord, they “will arise at the judgment of this generation and condemn it.”

[NOTE TO FELLOW BLOGGERS: This post makes the same point more concisely than the former one. You might consider linking it as well. Thanks!–Jimmy]

Here’s an article by Matt Abbott on a new method seeking to help couples who are having difficulty conceiving.

The new method is billed as strictly in conformity with Catholic moral teaching (whereas so many fertility therapies are not).

Let’s hope it is as advertised and that it helps many couples end the heartbreak of infertility!

A correspondent writes:

On May 4th of this year, the electrician servicing my parish backed his truck into my parked car. The damage appeared minor, but two estimates for repair came up with the same amount, $1518.00. The electrician’s insurance company mailed this amount to me, plus $150.00 for a rental car.
The car is old, the damage is minor, and the money would be helpful to clear up debts. Would it be an ethical
issue, if I opted not to have the repair done at this time? I would return the $150.00 for car rental to the insurance company.

The money that the insurance company sent you is yours to do with as you wish. This includes the money for the rental car. You can use the money on anything you want. That is why they sent you money rather than a voucher for car repair and a voucher for a rental car. The money is to compensate you for the damage and the trouble you have incurred by the accident, and if you choose to live with the damage and use your compensation on something other than car repair and car rental, that is your business.

You have no obligation to use the money in any particular way, so do with it whatever seems best to you, including the $150 for the rental car. People spend their insurance settlements on other stuff all the time, and if you tried to return any of it, it would probably only confuse the insurance company, and they might well return the check to you again.

Hope this helps, and God bless!