Pope Francis: Yes, dogs can go to heaven

[Nick the Pilot]

Pope Francis: Yes, dogs can go to heaven - Salon.com

Good news for Catholic pet owners (and slightly less good news for Catholic meat-eaters, potentially): According to Pope Francis, animals can go to heaven after all.

The New York Times is reporting that, in his latest break with conservative theology, the pope recently consoled a small child whose dog had died by assuring him that “one day, we will see our animals again in the eternity of Christ,” and “paradise is open to all of God’s creatures.”

It’s unclear whether the pope meant to contradict the long-standing theological position that animals don’t have souls and therefore just stop existing when they die — it was, as some pointed out, a casual, not doctrinal, statement — but animal rights’ groups are running with it.

(cont.)

 

[wanderer]

Interesting post. In my opinion, animals do have souls, if somebody has a pet, he does know this.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

This is indeed an interesting comment by the Pope. I wonder where he would draw the line. If pets have souls, do all mammals? Do reptiles? Birds? Fish? Insects? He's opened the proverbial can of worms (Do they have souls?).

In my opinion based on my view of how reality exists, it is my belief that all living things have 'souls'. Though I would not be using the term in the usual theological definition. Rather defining it as the spark of life that is universal to all of reality.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Yes, it certainly raises a lot of interesting questions (as seen from the Catholic perspective).

I definitely believe animals have souls. My pet dog used to have nightmares!

But animal souls are nothing like human souls. Fortunately, my belief system (Theosophy) clearly distinguishes between the nature of animal souls and human souls.

"...it is my belief that all living things have 'souls'."

--> Mine too. I believe that even minerals are 'possessed' or 'ensouled' by a form of 'soul' material. I believe that the ensoulation of minerals and the ensoulation of human bodies are both important steps along our path to a higher level of spirituality.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

This is interesting. As far as I've ever been told, the longstanding view was that animals other than humans do not have a soul. (at one time, it was questioned whether women have a soul though, so who knows). I've never doubted that animals of any type have a soul, probably different than Human. Whether they go to heaven or not isn't really discussed in any text, however in my faith's texts it is implied that animals both have a soul and a purpose. To grow and be eaten (for those that are of the ok to be eaten types) I don't see any reason why Catholocism would be absent of that possibility even if they now recognize the animals' soul or not. everything has a purpose. If their purpose is to serve man, and they do it, they should be rewarded.

Alternatively, he could have just been saying that in heaven you will have whatever you wish, in this case a certain dog.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"at one time, it was questioned whether women have a soul..."

--> Who questioned such a thing?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Alternatively, he could have just been saying that in heaven you will have whatever you wish, in this case a certain dog. BigJoe.

Now that is also a very interesting interpretation. It would more align with what little I understand of the Catholic faith. Good one, BJ.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

"at one time, it was questioned whether women have a soul..."

--> Who questioned such a thing?

According to several historians, It was brought up several times over the course of early church development. That being said, historians also debate over whether Jesus was real, or any of the other prophets. I was looking for a e-book I had read on the subject (title was "History of Women in the Church" or something), but it seems to have been removed... guessing maybe they started charging for it. Most of what I read goes in line with things at 7 - BIBLE DENIGRATES WOMEN, VEDAS ELEVATE THEM which I just skimmed over to see if it linked the book. The site tends to have a negative slant however, so I hesitated to post it. I'm not advocating that the Bible supports such slander, or that the early church considered it, only that from what I had read it was mentioned leading me to believe some people had to have questioned it.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wow! It is news to me that early Christians believed women didn't have souls.

I do not think Catholics teach that our pets will join us in heaven. (It is even mentioned in the article that this is a radical idea in Catholicism.) If this is what Pope Francis is teaching, I think it is a big change in the Catholic church's teachings.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Wow! It is news to me that some early Christians believed women didn't have souls.

There I fixed it for you.

 

[Thomas]

Ah me ...

No, the Early Church never taught that women don't have souls, that's a piece of someone's propaganda.

And if one reads the Bible, every living thing has a soul.

In short, where there is life, there is soul.

Some here seem to be under the impression that every comment the pope makes immediately becomes a matter of dogma. A somewhat ill-informed opinion.

So, no change really, just some more nonsense from the media.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Ah me ...

No, the Early Church never taught that women don't have souls, that's a piece of someone's propaganda.

And if one reads the Bible, every living thing has a soul.

In short, where there is life, there is soul.

Some here seem to be under the impression that every comment the pope makes immediately becomes a matter of dogma. A somewhat ill-informed opinion.

So, no change really, just some more nonsense from the media.

Which early church? There were many, and full doctrine wasn't adopted until the Bible was put together, which coincides with what many historians describe as a vote for concensus. Was it taught from that point on? Probably not. But why bring it to a vote if there is noone believing it. Would they ask how many people believe Jesus was a cockroach? No, noone thought that. It doesn't say men and women are equal in the Bible, and the general feel is that men have dominion over women. This would lead people to think maybe women are not a souled creature. Since the Bible never expressly says so. I'm not advocating that the church's opinion is that women do not have a soul, or that they are lesser than man. Just that scripturaly there isn't much to go on that says otherwise.

Which verse are you using to say all creatures (or specifically animals or plants) have a soul? It says all creatures that breath have the breath of God (or life giving word of God)

Even with all this, there is still debate whether the doctrine of an eternal soul even exists. Many groups do not thing a soul is immortal, but rather the words in the original text were translated incorrectly. According to many of those who contend it, the more correct translation would be "living being" meaning you are correct that all things that breath are living beings. just as an example from Wiki: Soul in the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thomas]

Which early church?

When the term 'early church' is used, I only know of one. Or rather, when I say 'early church' I use the term as scholars do.

There were many ...

How many, I wonder? I know of the Nozoreans, and the Ebionites, but they were always fringe.

Do you know of any that said women don't have souls?

... and full doctrine wasn't adopted until the Bible was put together ...

Doctrines were in place before the Bible was finally collated. Please remember the Tradition was there before the Bible was. And what doctrine are you referring to?

Was it taught from that point on? Probably not.

What, cats and dogs going to heaven? No, probably not. I doubt if anyone every actually asked the question.

But why bring it to a vote if there is noone believing it.

What to what vote?

This would lead people to think maybe women are not a souled creature.

In your opinion. I've never read any suggestion that women don't have souls.

I'm not advocating that the church's opinion is that women do not have a soul, or that they are lesser than man. Just that scripturally there isn't much to go on that says otherwise.

Actually there is.

Which verse are you using to say all creatures (or specifically animals or plants) have a soul? It says all creatures that breath have the breath of God (or life giving word of God)

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life (Hb: nephesh chay) ..." (Genesis 1:20).

Genesis 2:7: "... and man became a living soul", the words for 'living soul' are chay nepesh ... but the same phrase is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to any living creature, human or animal.

Where there is life, there is soul.

Even with all this, there is still debate whether the doctrine of an eternal soul even exists...

Well of course there is. There are those who doubt God exists, but that's not the point.

Personally I think it is possible for the soul to cease to exist. The spiritualised soul (neshamah) is eternal, but not the animic (nephesh) soul.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I'm a little confused on your last comment. I do not think animic is a word. And spiritualized soul is vague. What I believe your comment is is that humans souls are eternal, but other animals are not. Is that what you meant?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

DA,

I see animals souls as being just as eternal as human souls. Would you agree?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I'm a little confused on your last comment. I do not think animic is a word. And spiritualized soul is vague. What I believe your comment is is that humans souls are eternal, but other animals are not. Is that what you meant?

You can describe the soul as made up of different parts. I bet Thomas have some passage to indicate if animals have Neshamah or not.

Nephesh, related to natural instinct.
[...]
Neshamah, related to intellect and the awareness of God.

 

[Thomas]

I'm a little confused on your last comment. I do not think animic is a word.

You're right! I should have said 'animal', or perhaps 'created'... I thought it was!

And spiritualized soul is vague. What I believe your comment is is that humans souls are eternal, but other animals are not. Is that what you meant?

Not exactly.

I'm saying that anything created, including the soul, is not eternal, but that the soul can enter into a union with the Uncreate, and by this enter into eternity.

So it's not the soul as such, it's the quality of that which lives and moves in the soul that determines its possibility of realising its potential.

The Hebrew tradition observes these distinction, of qualities that are inherent in the soul – nephesh, the soul acording to its nature – and qualities that are not inherent but indwelling – neshamah – and which transcend the nature of the soul.

Christians follow the same distinctions, and I would have thought Moslems do also. I think all three traditions hold that plants, animals and man have souls. I would say minerals do, too.

Whether animals have transcendent souls is open to question, but it's not one that bothers me.

I rather think the question says something about the idea of heaven as an anthropomorphic ideal.

 

[Thomas]

Pope Francis: Yes, dogs can go to heaven - Salon.com

It appears the story is false.

UPDATE 12/14/2014: According to Religion News, a version of the quote in question was attributed in the original article to Paul VI, who died in 1978. However, “there is no evidence that Francis repeated the words during his public audience on Nov. 26, as has been widely reported, nor was there was a boy mourning his dead dog.” (emphasis mine)

More myth-making by the media.

 

[wil]

I love authoritative discussions of the unknown.

 

[Thomas]

The Abrahamic traditions are not dualist and this cannot be stressed enough, because the topic is continually discussed here in dualist terms.

A body – be it mineral, flora, fauna, human or angelic – is not 'ensouled', nor is a soul 'embodied'. It's not 'this-and-that', it's all in all.

The body – be it mineral, flora, fauna or human – is how a given soul manifests itself in the world. The body is the realised form of the soul.

The idea of reincarnation within an Abrahamic context cannot be properly understood from a dualist mindset. Indeed I think any notion of reincarnation suffers from this, which is why practitioners in the west, with a scant knowledge of the language and even less of the ideas of the east, have made such a fudge of the teaching.

Reincarnation within an Abrahamic context can only be properly understood when one has a firm grasp of the distinctions implied by the terms 'nephesh', 'ruach' and 'neshamah' when speaking of the self and the soul. Only then can a meaningful interfaith dialogue take place, such as the correspondences (if any, let's not jump to conclusions) between the Hebrew neshamah and the Sanskrit sutratma.

Again, and as ever, the confusion lies in a failure to adequately distinguish between the universal and the particular, between life as such and the individual soul.