The Catholic Church allows animal testing in the hope of creating new and better means of health treatments for both humans and animals.
However, these efforts must be done in the most humane way possible.
The causing of pain to animals merely for the cosmetic industry is immoral.
Re: Animal rights ----
Religious beliefs blended into animal rights has been painstakingly avoided over time. In a 1984 survey of animal rights activists, 65% were listed as agnostic or atheist. When the Christian tradition regarding animals is considered, this lack of belief is not hard to understand. According to St. Thomas, animals are irrational creatures, which existed to serve human ends. Their status is based on their nature and by divine plan. In this Christian tradition, which relies on the book of Genesis, man is seen as the pinnacle of God's creation with the rest of the creatures under his dominion. Because of this many people, who strive for better treatment of animals, view religious belief as hostile to their cause.
First, the problem with the rights position is that it is not an accurate use of this word. A right is a moral prerogative to possess and use a thing as one's own. Rights likewise imply responsibilities, as well as accountability for violations of the rights of others. All of this is obviously not true of animals. While the idea of animal rights has been promoted and embraced by some, the idea of animal responsibility is seen as absurd. There are no new moral demands placed on animals as a result of their newly elevated position. We expect and tolerate some violent and destructive behaviors in animals as simply part of their nature. A cat that kills a mouse is excused as just acting according to its nature. No one would seriously expect an animal to understand the rights of other individual animals and govern themselves by the moral demands involved in respecting these rights. Therefore, when we speak of animals, it is not proper to elevate them to moral agents with rights in and of themselves. Instead, we should speak of our human responsibility towards animals. These responsibilities, however, will vary with how animals are viewed and the value assigned to them.
The animal rights movement has attempted to diminish the differences between humans and animals. Animal life is equated in value to human life. If the differences between human and animal are diminished, man inevitably will seek to extend his dominion over animals to include his fellow human beings. The animal rights movement started with the noble intent of improving the quality of animal lives in human care. However, the underlying philosophies that have been widely adopted by society as a result have damaged our perception of both man and animals. In seeking equality between man and animals, this movement has diminished our view of humanity. Our separation from animals has been depicted as artificial and man-made. In addition, animals have been made over in man's image and have been denied their true nature. Animals should be appreciated as being wonderfully different from us. Further, if we consider animals as God's gift to man in creation, we are bound in responsibility over them. Fulfilling this responsibility requires that we first must affirm man's true nature and dignity. It is only then that we can strive to imitate God's compassionate care for the animals and all of creation.