On An Alleged Tension in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Christopher Tollefsen Recent years have seen an increased interest in questions concerning non-human animals among Catholic thinkers. Charles Camosy, John Berkman, and Celia Deane-Drummond, among oth- ers, have argued for the need to rethink the relationship between non-human animals, human persons, God, and creation. 1 They have often constructively but critically drawn on the resources of the Catholic intellectual tradition, such as the works of the Church fa- thers, of St. Albert and St. Thomas, and even the moral manual tra- dition. 2 Berkman and Camosy have also drawn particular attention to the treatment of animals in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as providing both a resource for thinking about animals, and as a manifestation of a particular tension they see in the Catholic tradi- tion. 3 Berkman writes of the Catechism, My summary evaluation of the Catechism is that it does not have one clearly consistent view on the moral treatment of non-human animals. Rather, it seems to have a variety of views that are at best in tension with one another, and perhaps even incompatible with each other. While some aspects of the teaching are speciesist, other aspects provide a wonderful starting point for Catholic moral and theological refection on non-human animals. And still other aspects of it are mystify- ing, leaving the reader with little guidance on applying the teaching. 4 Camosy too expresses a mixed judgment about the Catechism, iden- tifying with Berkman a number of perceived “tensions” that exist in the space of a mere four sections. Camosy highlights as salutary the Catechism’s claim that “we human beings owe non-human animals