Is desexing pets a sin?

[Ephestion]

We were getting all this support from the vet and other people to have our pet cat de-sexed. We thought she should have the right to have babies but everyone clouded our judgement including several letters from the Vet. We felt guided by people we knew and by professionals to undertake the task of de-sexing. Well eventually we did take her in to get the operation and then for the first time all the moral issues started to arise in our thoughts. At the time of writing this she is waiting to get operated on, and we are thinking of calling it off.

What do you guys think?

[Alice]

I don't think it is a sin and has never crossed my mind that it is. Is it not more of a sin to have litters born that may not have anyone to take care of them? Animals also make much better pets when they are neutered with much less agression and behavioural problems. I would not think twice of neutering a pet (and have done it to mine) unless I was seriously interested in breeding, and was sure that all the offspring would be taken care of.

[Herman Blaydoe]

We were getting all this support from the vet and other people to have our pet cat de-sexed. We thought she should have the right to have babies but everyone clouded our judgement including several letters from the Vet. We felt guided by people we knew and by professionals to undertake the task of de-sexing. Well eventually we did take her in to get the operation and then for the first time all the moral issues started to arise in our thoughts. At the time of writing this she is waiting to get operated on, and we are thinking of calling it off.

What do you guys think?

Despite what PETA thinks, pets are not people. They have multiple births because in the wild many, if not most, do not survive. That is not true for pets that live in an artificial environment. Offspring will need to be either destroyed (as would happen in the wild) or supported. Finding homes for these animals means those homes are not available for rescued animals, and even these pets may end up contributing to the feral population which contributes to the destruction of the natural habitat of "native" animals such as birds.

By having a house pet, you have created an unnatural situation that has to be dealt with by other than "natural" means. I know of at least one OC Greek priest who would say that having house pets, in and of itself, is a sin since in his view, animals are to be strictly utilitarian, not pampered, but I don't think he represents the teaching of the Church as a whole.

Unless you plan on running a cat farm and either finding homes for or caring for all the offspring, spaying is the responsible thing to do and the Ecumenical Patriarch would probably back that up as a rather well-known environmentalist.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain
Herman the not a pet Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Man has been given that innate sense of responsibility for creation which includes tending and caring for it. Of course the debate is ongoing about whether certain practices really tend or care for or whether they are abusive; but this is part of the larger point that as humans we are always in a relationship to creation. There is no way in which we can extricate ourselves from this relationship.

The other side of this relationship though is also important to keep in mind; for it is often overlooked in the contemporary discussions of this question. ie animals themselves are also innately attracted towards us. That in fact is how domestication of animals first occurred. Therefore from this attraction comes a responsibility towards such creatures.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

"Animal rights" advocates do greatly err when they assume that everything animals do is natural and therefore good. Animals are also affected by the fall, and therefore not everything they do is truly natural or good. They prey upon each other and upon man, they pollute and degrade the environment, and they breed compulsively whether or not an increase is needed in their numbers. It is man's responsibility to tame the fallen beast to make it suitable for the service of man and God. Spaying or neutering is one very reasonable way of doing this.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Rick H.]

I think it is possible that some beasts are better left alone--especially Canadian beasts!

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/profile5/1853/61/n839162438_6489.jpg

[Alice]

"Animal rights" advocates do greatly err when they assume that everything animals do is natural and therefore good. Animals are also affected by the fall, and therefore not everything they do is truly natural or good. They prey upon each other and upon man, they pollute and degrade the environment, and they breed compulsively whether or not an increase is needed in their numbers. It is man's responsibility to tame the fallen beast to make it suitable for the service of man and God. Spaying or neutering is one very reasonable way of doing this.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Interesting post. I never thought about animals also being affected by the fall, but I have thought about how some of the are kind of evil...

[Father David Moser]

Despite what PETA thinks, pets are not people. They have multiple births because in the wild many, if not most, do not survive.

Herman has an excellent point here. Pets are not people. If you do not spay or neuter your pet, be sure that YOU are willing and able to care for any and all offspring that may result from their "natural" interaction with other animals. You are the one responsible, not them, for the care and feeding of their offspring for the life of those animals (and for the grand, grand, grand (etc) children of the original pet. Are you ready and able to care for all those animals? If not, perhaps you should take the non-sinful and extremely appropriate action of spaying or neutering your pet.

Fr David Moser
Who has raised enough litters of pups to know the truth.

[Christophoros]

I'm not exactly sure how my opinion on this subject relates to Orthodoxy, but my understanding is this in relation to canines: the domestic dog is not the product of natural selection, but selective breeding by man. In most breeds, we have removed many of the natural, God-given instincts and traits of wild dogs in order to make them more useful or enjoyable to humans. We have even created breeds that would have absolutely no chance to survive in the wild (see the "toy breeds" among others) that frankly wouldn't exist without the influence of man. Because man essentially "designed" these animals for our use, it is our responsibility to care for them, and controlling their population when we live in a culture that considers them quite disposable is essential to prevent further negelect and abuse.

In Christ,
Chris

[Olga]

I'm not exactly sure how my opinion on this subject relates to Orthodoxy, but my understanding is this in relation to canines: the domestic dog is not the product of natural selection, but selective breeding by man. In most breeds, we have removed many of the natural, God-given instincts and traits of wild dogs in order to make them more useful or enjoyable to humans. We have even created breeds that would have absolutely no chance to survive in the wild (see the "toy breeds" among others) that frankly wouldn't exist without the influence of man. Because man essentially "designed" these animals for our use, it is our responsibility to care for them, and controlling their population when we live in a culture that considers them quite disposable is essential to prevent further negelect and abuse.

In Christ,
Chris

Good points, Chris. On the other hand, domestication and selective breeding in cats has led to essentially superficial, cosmetic changes (variations in coat colour, mainly). Otherwise, a cat remains, fundamentally a cat, with all the wherewithall of its ancient ancestry. Many have observed that cats, not being pack animals as are dogs, have allowed themselves to partake of the benefits human interaction, but not to submit completely to human intervention.

Because cats are entirely capable of reverting to their ancestral instincts if they are removed from a "domestic" environment, all the more reason for people to be aware of the consequences of not desexing their pets. All too often, litters of kittens are killed inhumanely, or, perhaps worse, let loose to fend for themselves, either to die, or to become feral. Here in Australia, there is the perennial debate about the damaging effect feral cats have had on wildlife populations.

Another benefit of desexing male dogs and cats is that, done at the right time, will curb much of the natural aggression which may manifest itself as the animal matures. If anything, a desexed male dog or cat becomes a more even-tempered, affectionate pet.

And, for the record, my family had pet cats for more than 35 years (and I still do), and all of them were desexed at the appropriate age.

[L. Allen]

If you do not spay an animal, and she is not able to become pregnant, she will constantly go into heat for nothing. Some animals are susceptible to what is called phantom pregnancy, where the physical symptoms of pregnancy occur. It's really not kind to keep a 'whole' animal unless you are a knowledgeable breeder.

I'm not sure animals' desire to have babies is very much like the human desire. One hopes we don't want babies just in order to have something to care for and to carry on our genes: we want babies who will be part of our family. Given that most animals don't seem to remember their children once these are grown, I don't think the same is true of them!

[Adrian]

I don't think is good to harm animals .
However, we should remember like Genesis 3 that snake and maybe other animals had not only the capacity to speak with Eve but also the capacity to intelligently persuade Eve like inducing the idea to Eve that eating the Apple is not wrong and looks like after the fall the animals may have lost this capability of speaking.
As rulers over animals we should take care of them as much as possible.
I did also read a prophecy about somebody finding out that people directing Babylon Tower building were punished to bark like dogs.
There is another story about a man cutting while little the legs of birds and it happened that he had an accident remaining without legs.

[Alice]

So Adrian, are you saying/implying that you think that neutering animals is harming them? :confused:

[Adrian]

It matters what God thinks. I think that it hurts animals.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It matters what God thinks. I think that it hurts animals.

What does eating animals do, then? Yes I know that monks don't eat meat but God has not put us all under that obedience and the Apostle Paul is quite extensive on the subject, even Christ ate lamb and fish. Animals are here in the service of man.

Spaying and neutering pets is more uncomfortable than painful. Ask a veterinarian.

Herman the carnivore Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In light of this discussion it is very enlightening to note that in The Lives of Saints, the saints always have a commanding and supervisory role over animals. This applies even as they show extreme compassion to animals. In this attitude of compassion however there is no sentimentalism.

This attitude is found especially among monastic saints; eg St Gerasimos and the lion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

It matters what God thinks. I think that it hurts animals.

Circumcision hurts little baby boys, too, but God for a long time didn't mind that.

I've never watched a vet spay or neuter an animal, but I'd be surprised if it weren't done with at least a local anesthetic nowadays.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Paul Cowan]

This attitude is found especially among monastic saints; eg St Gerasimos and the lion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

And,

St. Zosimas and the lion (St. Mary of Egypt story)
St. Seraphim of Sarov and the bear
St. (I forget his name) and the snake in the monastery kitchen.
Noah and the raven
Elder who sent the talking deer to rebuke the emporer who only got angry at the deer and tried to kill it.
Elder whose donkey got killed by the lion so he comanded the lion to carry the donkey's load to town for him.

I am sure there are many more.

I have one fixed male dog and 1 male and female not fixed dogs. We are hoping for a litter. I doubt it will happen. There is a sever height issue. Is it a sin to get them fixed or not? no! is it a sin to not be responsible for the talents (whatever they happen to be are) we are given? yes! It is wrong to run a puppy mill. It is not wrong to have puppies to give away or sell. Just like humans, each case is uniquely different. Sin is not a broad stroke on all topics.

Paul

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

In light of this discussion it is very enlightening to note that in The Lives of Saints, the saints always have a commanding and supervisory role over animals. This applies even as they show extreme compassion to animals. In this attitude of compassion however there is no sentimentalism.

To add Fr. Raphael's comment (warning?) about sentimentalism, I once heard sentimentalism defined as "caring more for something than God Himself cares for it." That may be the problem here.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Ephestion]

To clarify a little; Spayiing is done under general anesthetic. The animal is put to sleep and its ovaries are taken out (female). There is an insicion around 1 inch long made just above its abdomen and requires several stiches, around 12. The animal remains lethargic and weak for a few days post op and then starts to become more active.

After going through with it I now know it was a sin. It is a sin because God never put us incharge of other animals or people. He let us eat and live on the earth. In paradise Adam and Eve were given the right to live off the land. As I recall the Cananites were damned to live off the land and eat meat. That is for all intents and purposes we were allowed to kill and eat but not to just kill. There was a limit by moral basis on what we were allowed to do.

The process of spaying has the folowing moral issues:
1. The animal itself is not supposed to be in the total care of humans. Our limit is to let them live as they normally live and to assist them by bringing them to pasture, water etc. But we do not control them in an unatural way. When we defy the natural relationship with animals we break the confines of our moral code. So having a pet in the first place is immoral.

2. We may help animals, we may kill and eat them but we do not cage or threaten them or kill them for no reason. When we spay an animal we "wound" it so that it loses one of its biological functions. In ancient times camels had a stone placed in their uterus to avoid preganancy (IUD). That does not wound the animal because all its biological functions are intact. Remove the stone and the biological processes resume.

I feel it is a the wrong thing to have pets in the first place unless they serve some function like sheep herding, guards etc. Spaying an animal may take care of some related issues like starvation of newborns. But arguments relating to human made consequences like being killed or put down are irrelivant because they are superficial to the moral issue. When we cosider taxes as a human made system then "Give to caesar what is caesars and unto to God what is Gods." this means pay taxes. But we can not apply it to arguments relating to the consequences of animals if they are not processed (tagged, spayed, registered). These later things especially spaying is Gods territory not Caesars.

I have sinned, damn it!

[Eric Peterson]

I would think that there would be no issue of sin in spaying and neutering pets, otherwise there would be some divine command against it, since it's like doing the same to livestock. Has anyone found relevant commandments in the Bible?

There are reasons why we, as human beings, cannot do certain things to alter ourselves, since we are made in the image of God. But with animals, this is not the case. What is a sin is cruelty. But if eating them is not considered by God to be cruel or sinful, I don't see how spaying or neutering them would be, especially since this is done for good purpose. For like purpose, wings of birds are sometimes clipped, sheep are sheered, other animals are milked, etc.

[Ephestion]

None of the things you mentioned are wounding the animal or taking from them a biological function. Spaying does.

Bird Wing Clipping: The flight feathers grow back
Sheering: The wool grows back
Milking: Commercialised miliking may be a problem but in the old days people only miked what they needed. In any case it fills back up again.

[Herman Blaydoe]

None of the things you mentioned are wounding the animal or taking from them a biological function. Spaying does.

Bird Wing Clipping: The flight feathers grow back
Sheering: The wool grows back
Milking: Commercialised miliking may be a problem but in the old days people only miked what they needed. In any case it fills back up again.

Reminds me of the story about the conversation between a chicken and a pig about breakfast. Said the pig to the chicken: "what to you is just a donation, is a total commitment to me!"

Ham/sausage does not fill back up again. I assume you are a vegetarian?

At any rate, there is certainly something of a dilemma here. You seem to be saying that having a house pet is a sin, yet you have one. Which is the "bigger" sin, having a pet or spaying it? And how is spaying a cat a bigger sin than eating beef or ham or chicken for that matter?

Herman the very curious Pooh

[Olga]

Ephestion, you wrote:


None of the things you mentioned are wounding the animal or taking from them a biological function. Spaying does.

Bird Wing Clipping: The flight feathers grow back
Sheering: The wool grows back
Milking: Commercialised miliking may be a problem but in the old days people only miked what they needed. In any case it fills back up again.


What is the moral difference between desexing a pet dog or cat, and the gelding of horses, the castration of sheep, cattle and other animals, the latter being a farming practice as ancient as the domestication of these animals?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Ephestion, you wrote:



What is the moral difference between desexing a pet dog or cat, and the gelding of horses, the castration of sheep, cattle and other animals, the latter being a farming practice as ancient as the domestication of these animals?
Indeed, let us take this one further step. Since these practices existed in the times of Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, do we know of any Scriptural or patristic references against them? This would perhaps take things beyond the realm of personal opinion and possibly faulty logic.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Indeed, let us take this one further step. Since these practices existed in the times of Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, do we know of any Scriptural or patristic references against them? This would perhaps take things beyond the realm of personal opinion and possibly faulty logic.

The patristic commentaries (usually from Genesis) always assume an ongoing shepherding & care of creation by man. This is always part of the larger theological understanding of man made in the image & likeness who has a responsibility for creation. For those old enough to remember this was was part and parcel of 'religious knowledge' & culture until not too many years ago. But then this understanding was rejected as being too 'authoritarian' and replaced with more 'environmentally friendly' ideas. This was all done very consciously and has profoundly affected how we relate to animals and creation.

Suffice it to say that it is anti-Patristic and anti-ascetic to relate to animals & creation in the sentimental way that is nowadays encouraged. I would say that such attitudes inevitably begin to affect how we relate to each other also. It is accounted as kindness- but it ends up being a kind of selfishness.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alice]

Dear Father Raphael,

Bless. With all due respect, your last post, though of great interest to me, was a bit over my non-scholarly head.

Do you think you could kindly reword for me what it is, exactly that you mean and are trying to say. What constitutes, for instance, 'sentimentality', which you have referenced a couple of times in the context of this thread?

Thank you.:)

Respectfully in Christ,
Alice

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Well, if we look in the dictionary the word means "the tendency to be swayed by feeling." Classically the word was opposed in meaning to someone who relied on reason.

But here it would be better to say that sentimentality is opposed to ascetic love & sobriety.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Sentimentality is certainly a part of the problem (lack of reason, reliance on feeling), but a skewed imagination may be behind the sentimentality. Some people today habitually imagine all animals as human beings, with all of the rights, feelings, and dignity pertaining thereto.

This is very much a modern, post-Christian phenomenon. Young people grow up today in cities and suburbs without any direct experience of animals except as house pets. They collect stuffed animals. They are read books or watch videos about animals who are just like people, except never bad. Dinosaurs can be bad, but lions and tigers and bears are invariably lovable. Children are taught in school that man is but an animal. They are not taught to think rationally or to believe in the hierarchy of creation. Instead, they are taught that hierarchy is inherently bad and that domination is always oppression. They cannot therefore square mastery over animals with their anarchistic morality (which, by the way, is strictly human; no other animal is so foolish). Little wonder then that even as adults these children can’t train their dogs to behave and are as squeamish as schoolgirls about slaughtering animals for food.

This is all profoundly anti-Christian. Scripture tells us that God gave man dominion over all other living things and that from the start all animals were herbivorous (ate only plants). (Gen. 1:28-30) Only after the fall, after man abandoned his place as priest, did other living things rush with man into extreme disorder, killing and eating each other and stripping the planet of other life. Amid that disorder, God honored Abel the herder over Cain the farmer, finding Abel’s offering of meat more pleasing than Cain’s offering of vegetables. (Gen. 4:1-5) Under the Old Covenant, God instructed the Hebrews in the practice of animal sacrifice and forbade them to eat only certain animals. Under the New Covenant, He blessed the eating of all animals, declaring nothing unfit for man’s consumption. (Acts 10:9-16) The Apostle Paul warned St. Timothy about those who condemn the eating of meat. (1 Tim. 4:15) The early Church strove against various gnostic sects classed as Encratites because they preached veganism, among other errors. And for all its history, the Orthodox Church has eschewed the anthropomorphism of animals common in pagan folk tales. Holy Scripture mentions only the serpent in Eden and Balaam’s burro; otherwise, animals who act like people are not a part of the Christian imagination.

The whole thrust of the Christian imagination has been to get us to look up and see in God a human face and in us the image of God. The modern imagination reverses this, drawing us down to see dogs and cats as human and human beings as apes. The absurd result is that people today care more for penguins’ eggs than for preborn babies. Lord have mercy!

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Alice]

Dear Father Deacon Patrick,

Thank you for explaining how the word sentimentality is understood within the particular context of this subject...and an excellent post, I might add! :)

In Christ,
Alice

[Father David Moser]

This thread has definitely taken on a very illuminating character about the nature of animals and their relation to men. I have taken the liberty of moving it into the section of the forum dealing with the nature of the cosmos (that is the nature of the created world).

Fr David Moser