Ethics of Fur

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thank yu for the ino and the link. However the aricle is from a not very objective source Further, even if they are killed in the manner described, it still does not justify the use of fur.

What I posted was a description of how minks are raised. Not an opinion piece. So I am not sure whether “objective or subjective” is the right term. Maybe " truthful or untruthful" should be used. I for one am not sure how we can gage the truthfulness. But the fact that the fur trade has gone down significantly, I would guess the ones still in business would like to produce a quality product.

Also, raising them the way mentioned seems more humane than trapping them. The minks raised on a farm have longer lives, eat meals on a regular basis, they get to raise their kits, they get veterinary care. They are put down in a humane fashion. All parts are used, not just the fur.

Someone commented on the amounts of wasted food given to minks, and how that doesn’t seem just because of world poverty. I don’t think world hunger is contingent on mink farms 2 million pound of expired cheese and 1 million pounds of eggs would provide the citizens of the City of New York 1 egg and cheese sandwhich for one day.

And we are talking about spoiled food, not edible food… Food spoils because of varaious aspects, one being refrigeration failure, due to weather, black-outs, etc.I think even tofu spoils if it isn’t refrigerated

Also regarding the Holy Father’s wearing ermine, yes they are old, but he doesn’t *need *to wear him. Pope John Paul didn’t waer them to my knowledge. So if he wears them, isn’t that testimony to their licitness.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Did you read that biased article? One really horrible statistic really jumped out at me. The article talks about** one** fur farm that that feeds its mink 2 million pounds of expired cheese, and 1 million pounds of damaged eggs. So we are wasting all this food, it’s expiring, we’re feeding it to animals, and PEOPLE are starving all around the world, BUT the mink are fed well so that wealthy women can wear fur.

CCC **2418 **It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. 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.

I once used this very passage from the CCC to object to the vehemence and vitriol with which some on this board advocated for animals’ rights. My point was that animals, while deserving of love and compassion, should not be placed above people – thus, that animal rights is a cause that should never have the same level of support as, say, the pro-life movement.

(Edit) With regard to the spending of money, it seems pretty clear that this passage deals with prioritizing one’s pets over those people for whom one has responsibility – e.g., buying diamond collars for one’s dog instead of buying bread for one’s family.

Ironic that you are using the same passage to suggest that feeding minks is immoral. Look: if the food is going to rot, why not use it to feed animals? It’s not as if it could be shipped to Senegal. Furthermore, the US government is not spending that money on minks; it is private industry supported by people who WANT mink coats. If they are not allowed to buy mink coats, are they automatically going to spend that money on rice to be sent overseas?

It is a logical fallacy to claim a connection between the amount of money spent on raising minks for coat-making and the amount of starvation in the world. The two are not inversely related.

Peace,
Dante

 

[4elise]

Also regarding the Holy Father’s wearing ermine, yes they are old, but he doesn’t *need *to wear him. Pope John Paul didn’t waer them to my knowledge. So if he wears them, isn’t that testimony to their licitness.

I wasn’t aware that Pope JPII didn’t wear them. Thanks you for adding that.

I don’t think anyone has proposed that fur is illicit give the teaching of the Church, rather that today - since there are other options that do not require the suffering /and or death of an animal the option would be preferable given the teaching set out in the CCC regarding the needless suffering / death of animals.

 

[Marfran]

Meat and fur are also the products of ingenuity, wit, and resourcefulness. Animals do not possess these faculties.

The above bolded comment suggests that people who do eat meat or use fur are behaving like beasts.

You have every right to avoid eating meat. Nobody is debating that. But it is uncharitable to suggest in the subtext of your comment that a person who eats meat is behaving like an animal.

If you want people to come to your side, try to avoid insulting them with passive-aggressive commentary.

Peace,
Dante

Apparently you are not familiar with the works of Andrew Linzey, Matthew Scully, Deborah Jones and others who discuss why Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, not Jesus Christ the Predator.

If man uses his ingenuity, wit, and resourcefulness to kill other living beings that is still a manifestation of predation.

 

[Marfran]

Look: if the food is going to rot, why not use it to feed animals?

If the food is going to rot, why are we letting it rot and feeding it to animals to produce luxury items, instead of spending those same resources to help and feed PEOPLE.

 

[4elise]

And my point is that all of this is merely your opinion, as you have stated. It is objective fact that Catholics are not required to reject the use of fur; to argue otherwise is to elevate your personal opinion to the level of Church dogma.

You are entitled to avoid the use of fur because you feel morally obligated to do so. To use fur against your conscience is, in fact, a violation of Catholic moral teaching. I personally have no use for fur, but I like a nice leather belt, shoe, or baseball glove, and since I have no problem with producing or using those items, I have no objection to fur coats.

Peace,
Dante

Thanks Dante - for the understanding and expanding the clarification of the conscious issue as a violation of Catholic moral teaching.

Sometimes I wish I hadn’t learned what I have about factory farming, and the impact of all this on the environment, communities, issues of resources, etc… it would be much easier to continue to shop, dine out, etc… but in fact this issue does weigh heavily with me - fur is easy to avoid (not in that economic class!) , but I must admit I do crave from time to time a Fillet of Fish from McDonalds! (So I make shake and bake tofu and have it on a bun! )

 

[bigfootbob]

If the food is going to rot, why are we letting it rot and feeding it to animals to produce luxury items, instead of spending those same resources to help and feed PEOPLE.

If a company has something they don’t want/need and they can sell it, then they are obviously not going to give it away.

 

[Marfran]

If a company has something they don’t want/need and they can sell it, then they are obviously not going to give it away.

So we grow crops to feed agri-animals instead of PEOPLE, we feed the crops to the animals instead of giving the food directly to PEOPLE, the animals after eating all this food produce tons and tons of milk, cheese, eggs etc. (and also tons of urine and feces that pollute our soil and water), to sell to people, and we produce a surplus that rots that we feed to MINK so that rich ladies can wear fur coats. And all this happens in affluent countries while less affluent people starve.

CCC 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. **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.

So we spend money to feed animals instead of feeding people directly, we spend money feeding MINK for luxury fur coats, instead of using those resources in the relief of human misery.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Minks eat* spoiled* food, Food can spoil due to refrigeration failure, ie a black-out. Lot’s of businesses lost inventory due to the black out a few years ago… Let’s not accuse people of purposely allowing food to spoil in order to feed it to minks.

 

[bigfootbob]

So we grow crops to feed agri-animals instead of PEOPLE, we feed the crops to the animals instead of giving the food directly to PEOPLE, the animals after eating all this food produce tons and tons of milk, cheese, eggs etc. (and also tons of urine and feces that pollute our soil and water), to sell to people, and we produce a surplus that rots that we feed to MINK so that rich ladies can wear fur coats. And all this happens in affluent countries while less affluent people starve.

CCC 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. **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.

So we spend money to feed animals instead of feeding people directly, we spend money feeding MINK for luxury fur coats, instead of using those resources in the relief of human misery.

We already have spoiled food, what else would you suggest doing with it?

 

[4elise]

Minks eat* spoiled* food, Food can spoil due to refrigeration failure, ie a black-out. Lot’s of businesses lost inventory due to the black out a few years ago… Let’s not accuse people of purposely allowing food to spoil in order to feed it to minks.

I don’t think that was Marfran’s point - (at least that is not how I understood it) - not wasting food - but the issue of producing more than is needed - maybe??

 

[Newbie2]

Do you own a mink as well?

A live one or a dead one?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Apparently you are not familiar with the works of Andrew Linzey, Matthew Scully, Deborah Jones and others who discuss why Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, not Jesus Christ the Predator.

If man uses his ingenuity, wit, and resourcefulness to kill other living beings that is still a manifestation of predation.

No, I am not familiar with these people – nor am I interested, frankly, if it has anything to do with whether it is right to eat meat! Jesus is the lamb of God because he was a sacrifice offered up for our sin. This has NOTHING to do with animal rights, and it honestly smells a little sacrilegious to suggest that it does!

With regard to your comment about “predation”, I say “fine”. We are predators. We are, in fact, omnivores; God made us this way. If you don’t want to eat meat, or wear fur, or what-have-you, then DON’T. But it is flat out wrong to suggest that the Church is behind you on this, when the CCC (even the part you quote) just does not back you up.

It would be equally as wrong for me to suggest there is something wrong with you for refusing to eat meat – which, you’ll notice, I am not doing.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Let me add just one other point about the CCC passage that Marfran is misinterpreting:

CCC 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. 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.

Marfran is bolding the section “It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.” She claims this as support for her belief that it is wrong to spend money on animals for their furs. However, the context of the entire passage makes it clear that it is about striking a balance between love for animals and their proper place in the world – that is, as creatures subordinate to humans.

What I mean is this: the passage starts out by condemning cruel or neglectful treatment of animals. It then contrasts that with lavishing them with rich treatment at the expense of our duties to humankind. It sums this point up with what is clearly the main point of CCC 2418, the declaration of animals’ rightful place in our hearts:

“One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.”

The CCC, like anything else, must not be interpreted out of context.

Peace,
Dante

 

[4elise]

A live one or a dead one?

either?

 

[vz71]

Exactly. Predators kill. We are made in the image of God. God is compassionate, merciful, loving. God is not a predator. Meat and fur are the products of predation. I choose not to emulate the predator animal, the beast, and to rather show him mercy and extend compassion to him, in the role of steward bestowed upon me.

God was the first to kill and then fashion skins as clothing.

 

[Newbie2]

either?

Nope. Neither.

I do have a couple of Chinchillas as patients, though. Don’t worry…they’re pets and not destined to be part of a coat.

 

[4elise]

Nope. Neither.

I do have a couple of Chinchillas as patients, though. Don’t worry…they’re pets and not destined to be part of a coat.

 

[Marfran]

Let me add just one other point about the CCC passage that Marfran is misinterpreting:

Marfran is bolding the section “It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.” She claims this as support for her belief that it is wrong to spend money on animals for their furs. However, the context of the entire passage makes it clear that it is about striking a balance between love for animals and their proper place in the world – that is, as creatures subordinate to humans.

What I mean is this: the passage starts out by condemning cruel or neglectful treatment of animals. It then contrasts that with lavishing them with rich treatment at the expense of our duties to humankind. It sums this point up with what is clearly the main point of CCC 2418, the declaration of animals’ rightful place in our hearts:

“One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.”

The CCC, like anything else, must not be interpreted out of context.

Peace,
Dante

So is it the rightful place of animals to be confined in a small cage for their entire life, then killed by anal electrocution or other method, to be then skinned, and made into luxury fur coats for us to wear on our backs?

 

[4elise]

So is it the rightful place of animals to be confined in a small cage for their entire life, then killed by anal electrocution or other method, to be then skinned, and made into luxury fur coats for us to wear on our backs?

I think Dante might have missed your point regarding spend money that should instead be a priority to relief of human misery ----

I understood your reference to mean - the cost of breeding, raising, skinning, preparing the skins, for a luxury coat (even (or perhaps even more so) if the little critters live in luxury) could / should better be spent.

His point, I believe was that that section of the CCC referenced people ‘over loving’ their pets -

So - you know I agree with you Marfran 100% - I do not know of a ‘need’ for a $20,000 fur that justifies this use of animals per the CCC’s notation re the unnecessary suffering/death of animals -

I ALSO find it impossible to justify the cost that is incurred by those who raise these fur bearing animals - that is ultimately paid for by someone who wears the fur as a status symbol - when indeed this luxury item can be lived without quite easily, perhaps another section of the CCC references how we should use our resources - not related to animals - that might well applied to this part of the discussion?

Perhaps this:

2547 The Lord grieves over the rich, because they find their consolation in the abundance of goods. "Let the proud seek and love earthly kingdoms, but blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven."341 Abandonment to the providence of the Father in heaven frees us from anxiety about tomorrow.342 Trust in God is a preparation for the blessedness of the poor. They shall see God.

• I understand that the average number of mink used for a coat is 40