In 1984 a baboon's heart was transferred into 14-day-old "Baby Fae" at Loma Linda Hospital in California. The primate's heart was used primarily because human organs suitable to transplant into infants are very difficult to come by. The transplant was approved because Baby Fae's own heart was thought unable to keep her alive for more than a couple of days. Tragically, Baby Fae died 21 days after receiving the transplant from the baboon.

Needless to say, there was significant controversy about this in the media. Apart from those who were concerned about the moral legitimacy of transplanting non-human tissue and organs into a human, there were those who were concerned about the ethical legitimacy of the sacrifice of the baboon

In his 1998 article, "A Catholic Case for Vegetarianism," in the journal Faith and Philosophy (vol 15, No. 2), Andrew Tardiff argued that the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Catholic Church "imply an obligation to avoid killing animals for food."

On Feb. 5, 2008, the UCLA Office of Media Relations reported on an attack perpetrated against a UCLA faculty member who conducts research involving laboratory animals. "The FBI and other members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force investigated a fire caused by a device left at the front door of the Los Angeles home owned by Edythe London, a UCLA professor of psychiatry and of molecular and medical pharmacology. The device charred the front door early on Feb. 5. Nobody was home at the time and nobody was hurt. In a news release posted on its Web site, a group calling itself the Animal Liberation Front said that 'animal liberationists' were responsible for the attack."

Where is the line?
There is a history of concern among Catholic moralists about some animal issues. The question about the moral acceptability of the use of animals for blood sport like bull fighting, cock-fighting or dog fighting have been a part of the Catholic moral literature for generations. Admittedly such practices are found prevalent in a number of predominantly Catholic cultures. Does the Church accept these practices as legitimate?

But beyond this issue, as important as it is in itself, today more and more questions are being raised by concerned Christians about proper moral choices regarding animals. Moral concerns include:

---the legitimacy of the use of animals for medical experimentation and/or product safety testing (including cosmetics);

---some of the practices used in the industrial farming of animals for food;

---methods used for the production of elite gourmet products like foie gras (paté made from fatty goose/duck liver);

---and finally, the amount of money spent on pet food and care in the industrialized nations when children continue to die of starvation in so many other parts of the world.

So what is a Catholic supposed to think? Is there a line between the rights of humans and the rights of animals? If there is a line, where is it?

In a 2002 interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, addressed the issue of foie gras himself, thus raising consciousness about it, especially in cultures that were historically insensitive to the abuse of the animals in its production:

"We cannot just do whatever we want with them," he said. "Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens living so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible. Animals, too, are God's creatures and even if they do not have the same direct relationship to God that human beings have, they are still creatures of God's will, creatures we must respect as companions in creation."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the general moral stance of Christians to animals in numbers 2415-2418. The Church does not speak about "animal rights" however. In fact it is more accurate to speak about "animal welfare" since animals do not have rights in the way that human beings do. Morally speaking, while animals can be "used" for reasonable purposes, human beings can never be "used." Fundamentally, it is morally acceptable for humanity to "use" animals even for food, but it is immoral for humanity to "abuse" animals.

The moral starting point is that all creation is to be respected: "Animals … are by nature destined for the common good of past, present and future humanity." "Animals are God's creatures. God surrounds them with providential care.… Thus human beings owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals" (CCC, n. 2415-16).

With this moral vision as our point of departure, we take further note of God's words to humanity as found in the book of Genesis (2: 19-20; 9: 1-4):

"God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom God created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help human beings in their work or 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" (CCC, n. 2417).

The moral 'use' of animals
It then becomes clear what the Church means by the moral "use" of animals. It includes using animals for food and clothing. In contradiction to Tardiff, the Catholic Church does not understand vegetarianism as a moral imperative. Legitimate use also includes using animals as beasts of burden. It even gives moral credence to the "reasonable" use of animals for medical and scientific experimentation.

However, the Church's teaching allowing the "use" of animals is not without moral limits. The use of animals for experimentation is only morally acceptable "if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives." This teaching would certainly justify the use of the baboon's heart in the attempt to save the life of Baby Fae.

But, in and of itself, it would not give legitimacy to killing, harming or even causing pain to animals for cosmetic testing and many if not all other similar kinds of product safety evaluations, especially when animal testing can be avoided to achieve the same results. In fact, the Catechism (n. 2418) goes on to state, "It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly."

In December 2000, the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano published an article by the Belgian theologian Marie Hendrickx, "For a More Just Relationship with Animals." In her article she reminds us of the important connection that all animals help make between God and God's creation:

"The restored harmony with the Creator thanks to the messianic child will be expressed in a new harmony with creation, to which the animal world also belongs. At the time of our definitive encounter with the Beloved, our hearts will be like his, so that all our past affections, however humble they may be, will find their place, having been purified, made right and ordered to him. For God, nothing human can be lost, not even the simple ties we have formed with the animal creatures which filled, for example, our moments of loneliness."

Thus Hendrickx reminds us of the important roles that animals play in the life of the human race, beyond the utilitarian, so that they fall into the circle of creatures that humans relate to.

Moral limits?
This however, leads us to our final point for moral analysis. While it is clear that there are moral boundaries that prevent the abuse of animals, are there moral limits to what amount of resources a Christian disciple should spend on their pets, especially when there is so much human suffering on our planet?

According to MarketResearch.com, sales of pet products other than food reached $8.5 billion in 2005. That was more than the $6.2 billion spent on baby care products. Ann Hoevel of CNN reported on March 17, 2006 that, in the decade from 1994 through 2004, the amount of money spent on pet food, pet supplies, veterinary visits, medicines, live animals and services, more than doubled from $17 billion to $34.2 billion. In 2005 alone $36.3 billion was spent. An increasing percentage of that money was spent on services that used to be reserved for people: massage therapy, spa treatments, couture clothing and gourmet food."

In February 2007, the Associated Press reported, "some 18,000 children die every day because of hunger and malnutrition and 850 million people go to bed every night with empty stomachs…."

The Catechism does address this issue directly (n. 2418). While all animals are to be cared for and used reasonably, and pets can have a very legitimate part to play in the lives of many families, "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." Can Christians morally justify luxuries for pets like massages and gourmet food when almost 20,000 children die daily of want of bread?

In conclusion, care for animals, the reasonable use of animals and the prevention of cruelty to animals by the human community are moral requirements. At the same time, people are called to maintain an ethical balance between the immoral abuse of the animals themselves and the wasteful abuse of resources on animals that are better directed towards our sisters and brothers in need.