Cannibalism a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter heliumspark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

heliumspark

Guest
I know it is wrong to kill people and eat them.

My question is: is there anything intrinsically evil about eating human flesh, even in dire circumstances, such as in the movie, “Alive”?

Please provide a reference to the biblical passage and/or applicable church documents. Thank you.
 
I’m gonna have to chew on that one a while… sorry, i couldn’t resist… 👍
 
40.png
heliumspark:
I know it is wrong to kill people and eat them.

My question is: is there anything intrinsically evil about eating human flesh, even in dire circumstances, such as in the movie, “Alive”?

Please provide a reference to the biblical passage and/or applicable church documents. Thank you.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Then we’ll see the post about the Eucharist.
 
Cannibalism is not intrinsically evil.

We know this because Christ himself told us there is no such thing as an unclean food, and that nothing that comes into us can defile us.

As far as the Church’s official position, here’s an excerpt from the famous essay “In Defense of Cannibalism” from the renowned philosopher Richard Routely (Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University):
Restricted forms of cannibalism in the interests of survival are now quite widely accepted as admissible. So there is really nothing extravagant at all in contending that sometimes cannibalism is perfectly all right: any extravagance is due to the fact that the admissible cases lead, naturally and coherently, once human chauvinism is properly left behind, to much more controversial cases. There are several examples of human cannibalism undertaken for survival, which have won establishment approval, from legal or church hierarchies. A striking recent example is the cannibalism of members of a Uruguayan rugby party who survived an airplane crash in the high Andes (dramatised by Read, P.P. 1974. Alive. Avon, New York). Their eating of dead companions, evidently necessary for survival, was condoned by the Catholic Church of Uruguay and by other prominent Catholic thinkers. Interestingly, Rubio, Auxiliary Bishop of Montevideo, justified such cannibalism, necessary for survival, through a medical transplant comparison:
Click to expand...
… Eating someone who has died in order to survive is incorporating their substance, and it is quite possible to compare this with a graft. Flesh survives when assimilated by someone in extreme need, just as it does when an eye or heart of a dead man is grafted onto a living man… (as quoted in Read 1974, p. 308).
Click to expand...
But the Bishop tactfully rejected, except “as a source of inspiration”, the equivalence, appealed to by some members of the team, between eating the flesh of their friends and participating in communion, as initiated by Christ at the Last Supper, where he (figuratively) shared his flesh and blood with his apostles (Read 1974, p.309; also p. 299). Exactly why this correlation, which undoubtedly helped the survivors, gets discounted, remains tantalisingly obscure. The correlation seems worth pursuing further. For though survival was not a problem for the apostles at the Last Supper (so destroying a strict correlation), survival is not the only basis justifying the eating of human flesh. As with blood, the gift relation is another important basis.
Click to expand...

So it would seem that eating human flesh in case of emergency is no different than receiving an organ transplant. Interesting, huh?

I wonder, though, about ritual cannibalism. Some heathen cultures practice this, and it’s something done out of reverence for one’s leaders, heroes, or ancestors (once these have died of natural causes). Since this in no way represents to these people a denial or betrayal of human dignity, I honestly don’t see why a converted people could not inculturate this into their Catholicism.

What say you all?

:cool:
 
I don’t agree… I think the practice, even in an “emergency”, is evil and a misuse of creation. If we believe that the body serves as the Lord’s temple, we understand that we can’t desecrate it, or we place our soul’s in peril. Otherwise, we are no different than the wild animals. Wild predators eat at will to satisfy their bodily needs, but believers understand that being created in God’s image places in a different plane. Sometimes there are greater concerns than almighty self-preservation.
 
40.png
Writer:
I don’t agree… I think the practice, even in an “emergency”, is evil and a misuse of creation. If we believe that the body serves as the Lord’s temple, we understand that we can’t desecrate it, or we place our soul’s in peril. Otherwise, we are no different than the wild animals. Wild predators eat at will to satisfy their bodily needs, but believers understand that being created in God’s image places in a different plane. Sometimes there are greater concerns than almighty self-preservation.
Click to expand...
Amen.

That’s why I put the picture of the troll up above. This post was looking for a Catholic to say that cannibalism is sinful, then use it as proof that Catholics sin:

When practicing Catholics go to the altar to receive their cracker and grape juice, they might be horrified to know that they are participating in a cannibalistic ritual. According to the Catholic Church, that cracker and juice they are eating does not symbolize Jesus’ body and blood; it is Jesus’ body and blood. I quote from paragraph 1333 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ.” Ladies and Gentlemen, these people are serious.
I’ve been on these boards long enough to have Heightened Troll Sense™. I think it’s a special charism. 😃
 
Writer:

I don’t think the Church agrees with you. Read my post again.

For the same reasons you state, the Church used to prohibit cremation. Cremation was not recognized to be intrinsically evil, but seen as imprudent, as it could imply a disregard for human dignity and/or the resurrection of the body.

For the same reasons, the Church in the Middle Ages also forbade doctors and scientists for digging up dead bodies for study and dissection.

Unless you find documentation suggesting otherwise, I think the Church’s teaching on organ transplant, Alive incident, and the response of Archbishop Rubio of Montevideo display a consensus in the Church different from yours.
 
Cannibalism of midgets in Australia is commonly referred to as:

“Putting a shrimp on the barbie” 😛
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
We know this because Christ himself told us there is no such thing as an unclean food, and that nothing that comes into us can defile us.
Click to expand...
Although interestly enough Peter’s vision did not include human flesh.
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
As far as the Church’s official position, here’s an excerpt from the famous essay “In Defense of Cannibalism” from the renowned philosopher Richard Routely (Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University)…
Click to expand...
An article by an errant philosopher and a quotation from a single bishop do not define the Church’s official position.
DominvusVobiscvm:
I wonder, though, about ritual cannibalism. Some heathen cultures practice this, and it’s something done out of reverence for one’s leaders, heroes, or ancestors (once these have died of natural causes).
Click to expand...
In fact, these heathen cultures practice cannibalism to summon or imbue themselves with the spirits of their dead ancestors. It is a distinctly pagan practice that cannot be incorporated into the true faith (it is at best falsehood and at worst demonic).

This is a question of natural law and common sense. Cannibalism is evil.
 
:tsktsk:
Sorry, I’m reading all these posts and I think I may not have made my question clear. I am not interested in anyone’s opinion in the slightest. I want to know if anyone can give me a reference to canon law or an official church document that defines the Church’s official teaching on cannibalism.
 
Thanks for the heads-up, Barrister… A couple more observations, then I am going to try to wash this macabre dialogue out of my brain and write my children’s book. The mystery of the Eucharist is not something easily understood, but we accept it on faith. Although I am new to the Catholic Church and still reading the Catechism and still making my way slowly through the writings of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas–who I believe wrote some significant observations on the Eucharist in particular–it is a hard aspect to grasp. I phrased it for myself something along these lines, and I may still not have it quite right.

*The Sacrament as a whole undergoes a miraculous change from the ordinary and mundane to the Holy–Christ’s true body and blood–without physicaly altering its material components. *

If one splashes a drop of the consecrated wine, for example, we’re not going to see human DNA under a microscope. Yet, it is truly the body and blood of Christ in much more than a symbol can represent. I’ll be honest, though, I still have more study to go before I can explain it well. What is clear, though, is that any attempt to characterize the acceptance of the Eucharist as particpation in cannibalism extends beyond the scope of common sense and into the realm of blasphemy.

Helliumspark, as this question probably doesn’t arise in the real world all that often (thankfuly), you’re probably not going to find much of lasting value and worth written about it; likely nothing of an official or legitimate nature exists on this topic. That being the case, the only way you’re going to decipher it is through discussion like this. The answers can’t always be handed to one a silver platter. Anyway, I think I have had my fill of this thread for now…
 
Despite the fact that the questioner may be a troll I don’t think that we are relieved of our responsibility to provide a good answer. We can deal with the eucharistic question as it arises.
As far as I can tell the church has no “official” teaching on the evil natrue of cannibalism certainly ritual cannibalism would be wrong or taking a life for whatever purpose is intrinsically evil.
CCC 2300 tells us that the bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity. 2301 tells us that “The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious”. It seems reasonable that if you can give the heart of the deceased to a person in an emergency situation so that he might have life, is it that much of a stretch to use it to feed a starving person if that is the only way to save a person from dying?
 
Is this what you are looking for?

Leviticus 20
20:2 "You shall also say to the sons of Israel: 'Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 20:3 'I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name. 20:4 'If the people of the land, however, should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death, 20:5 then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the harlot after him, by playing the harlot after Molech. **Deuteronomy 12 **12:31 You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. **Leviticus 18 **18:21 You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
 
Let’s just pray none of us ever has to ask this question for real.
 
2 Kings 6:28-30

Then he asked her, “What’s the matter?”

She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him today, and tomorrow we’ll eat my son.’ So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him,’ but she had hidden him.”

When the king heard the woman’s words, he tore his robes. As he went along the wall, the people looked, and there, underneath, he had sackcloth on his body.

Leviticus 26:27-30

If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you.

Deuteronomy 28:47-48, 53-57
Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you… Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you-so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot-will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities.

Jeremiah 19:8-9

I will devastate this city and make it an object of scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.
 
Quoting the Old Testament to show that cannibalism is immoral is as effective as quoting the Old Testament to show that eating pork is immoral.
 
40.png
quintessential5:
Quoting the Old Testament to show that cannibalism is immoral is as effective as quoting the Old Testament to show that eating pork is immoral.
Click to expand...
Not quite. You see, the New Testament specifically permits the eating of once considered “unclean” animals. The New Testament at no point reverses restrictions placed on not eating human flesh.

**Acts 10 **10:9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10:10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 10:11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 10:12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 10:13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 10:14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."10:16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
 
Jdg:

Jesus said that nothing that goes into the mouth makes one unclean. And decalred that **all ** foods are clean.

Why is no one commenting on my first post on this thread, which is the closest thing we have to tracing an official Church stance on the subject?

It seems to me that people are taking their own cultural tabboos and reading them into their private interpretations of Scripture, without any reference to Magisterial teaching or practice.

Sounds awfully Protestant to me . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top