Are there any forbidden foods in Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rudolph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not at all, not even mitigating circumstances of culpability?
 
Rudolph said:
What about Uruguay flight 571?
Click to expand...
I don’t know… but they didn’t kill the humans they ate.

And that was a very unique/ extreme situation with humans trapped on a part of our planet where plants and animals was basically non-existent
 
Last edited:
I think it is not in our place to judge. Cannabalism is considered sinful, bit in extreme circumstances culpability may be reduced even entirely. Even according to the Catechism stealing food from someone who has more than enough and isn’t helping in your need is morally permissable if you are starving. I don’t know what it is like to starve, but I have heard sometimes you can lose rationality and you just go into survival mode.
 
I will never eat… Humans, Dogs, Cats, any live animal. Everything else is fair game…
 
Last edited:
If I was desperate enough… yes. But I would be starving at that point 😉
 
Yes, I understand, and I didn’t want to elaborate into any mere detail as not to gross anyone out and not have anyone to think that I’m obsessed it with, but just sharing the wee bit of knowledge that I have. The “Long Pig” comment was meant to be a joke though. The Donner Party and the case of the Soccer team that crashed in the Andes had no choice to result to cannabalism to survive. I can easily say in my comfortable home that I would never result to it, but in a live or die situation, it would be a very difficult situation. But I’d never ear Eggplant, Broccoli, Asparagus, Brussel Sprouts under any any circumstances.
 
Reduced culpability isn’t the same thing as morally permissable. You’ve asked a separate question.

Yes, there are almost infinite different levels of culpability that must discerned by the individual. However, the church judges actions divorced from those concepts. If something is intrinsically evil, anyone who does that thing has done something evil. That’s NOT saying they go to hell. It’s not necessarily saying they have sinned either. But it is saying, whether they realized it or not, what they did is bad.
 
rosejmj said:
Even according to the Catechism stealing food from someone who has more than enough and isn’t helping in your need is morally permissable if you are starving.
Click to expand...
Source? This sounds like something out of Kant rather than the CCC.
 
Not even eggplant parmigiana, which can be very tasty if done right?
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Surely not EVERYTHING else including insects?
Click to expand...
I spend about two months each year in Puebla, Mexico. My FAVORITE snack there is chapulines, fried grasshoppers. They are really addictive. You would probably love them, too, if you tried them without knowing what they are.
 
Last edited:
Ok, well in that case I see what you are going for. But the CCC isn’t saying theft is ok under these circumstances. Rather it’s saying under this circumstance taking someone else’s things isn’t theft.

It’s an important distinction.

And further how that is used as reason for eating human flesh is beyond me, honestly. That’s exactly why I’m stressing the fact that moral imperatives do not change under the circumstances. Can’t believe I have to argue so extensively to get people to see that cannibalism is always wrong… it was basically a throwaway/joke comment.
 
chessnerd321 said:
Ok, well in that case I see what you are going for. But the CCC isn’t saying theft is ok under these circumstances. Rather it’s saying under this circumstance taking someone else’s things isn’t theft.
Click to expand...
True enough.
chessnerd321 said:
Can’t believe I have to argue so extensively to get people to see that cannibalism is always wrong… it was basically a throwaway/joke comment.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top