Ethics of Fur

[4elise]

Sure there are other materials, but they are aren’t as good. For example, will not buy boots or a belt or gloves that are not made of leather. They just do not hold up as well. I will pay over $100 for a pair of leather boots instead of $20 for a pair of synthetic ones. I had a rabbit skin hat and that was the warmest hat I have ever had. If there are better synthetic things and they are cheaper I will buy them.

I am sure that there is something to be said for how long stuff lasts - but I’ve got a pair of Payless boots that are all synthetic that I’ve had 5 years ($19.99)- and for keeping warm I’ve always practiced the layers rule - so might not be able to bend my elbows (again this is a joke) but can be done with cotton, and synthetic fabrics!

 

[mmsiciliana]

Originally Posted by severus68
You would reflect poorlyly on Catholics by putting down fellow Christians.

We are supposed to be good stewards of God’s creation and will have to answer to God one day.

This thread is about the ethics of fur. Anyway, there is nohing in the Bible that says we sin if we refuse to eat meat or wear fur.

We can make individual decisions not to eat meat, use fur and believe we are good stewards of God’s creation by doing so particularly today.

Everyone chooses passages that supports his/her view.

MMSiciliana wrote: A “cafeteria Catholic”–one who picks and chooses what teachings of the Church we will believe and which he won’t is not a Catholic–he is a Protestant, by definition of the word. A Protestant is one who protests some teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s not a put-down.

And anyway there is nothing in the Bible that says we sin if we choose to eat meat or wear fur. And, there is nothing in the Catechism that says we sin if we choose to eat meat or wear fur. Therefore, eating meat and wearing fur are moral choices that can be made. Therefore, it follows logically that eating meat and wearing fur is ethical. To prove your contention that it is unethical to eat meat or wear fur, you would have to show me where it says in the Bible and/or the Catechism of the Catholic Church that either is prohibited by God or the teachings of the Catholic Church. You and the others have been unable to do so, so the question is answered in the affirmative.

You really do not have to get defensive and then try to insult me or anyone else. No one here made a persona attack on your parents or their choce of business. I have read quite lot of the Reformation, thank you. You have contradicted yourself. You meant it as an insult. When some born again Christians have criticised Catholics, I have suggested politely that they should develop their own spirituality. This is a forum for discussion, not for making personal attacks.

I have made my own conclusions as to how I shall lead my life. You do not have to agree with me. You can go on saying how we have not shown the moral/Christian/Catholic basis for our convictions. We have over and over. The fact is we do live such lifestyles because we have found the bases o d so.

---

Protestant

---

One who protests; – originally applied to those who adhered to Luther, and protested against, or made a solemn declaration of dissent from, a decree of the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529, against the Reformers, and appealed to a general council; – now used in a popular sense to designate any Christian who does not belong to the Roman Catholic or the Greek Church.

---

Making a protest; protesting.

---

Of or pertaining to the faith and practice of those Christians who reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church; as, Protestant writers.

---

You said “Everyone chooses passages that supports his/her view.” Following that through logically means you are a Protestant in the sense of the 2nd and 3rd definitions above. My point was that you have to take the whole Bible and the whole Catechism, not just take verses out of context and claim they mean what you want them to mean. There is only ONE truth. Either it’s morally right to use animals for food and clothing (as the Catechism says) or it’s morally wrong–for EVERYONE. Again, that does not preclude the possibility that you may choose NOT to engage in some activity that is morally right to engage in. For instance, some people do not choose to marry and thereby give up the right to engage in sexual relations with someone else. That doesn’t make them bad people. But it also does not follow that all who do choose to marry are therefore bad people because they choose to engage in something that is moral. You alsocannot claim that you are refusing to eat meat or wear fur because to eat meat or wear fur is immoral or unethical according to the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

 

[mmsiciliana]

Sure there are other materials, but they are aren’t as good. For example, will not buy boots or a belt or gloves that are not made of leather. They just do not hold up as well. I will pay over $100 for a pair of leather boots instead of $20 for a pair of synthetic ones. I had a rabbit skin hat and that was the warmest hat I have ever had. If there are better synthetic things and they are cheaper I will buy them.

I agree. I also choose to wear leather shoes because they hold up better than synthetic. I also choose to wear cotton and linen rather than polyester because the natural fibers breathe and they are biodegradable. I don’t wear wool though–it makes me itch.

 

[4elise]

Originally Posted by mmsiciliana
Who wears fur anymore these days? Millions of people. They’re still buying it and they’re still wearing it, and that’s what really irritates you, isn’t it? Prove your statement that “[t]here are much warmer materials for the Arctic.” You also state, “We have a factory farm mink rancher here trying to convince us to wear mink!!!” I’m not a factory farm mink rancher, so you have lied again. In short, you haven’t proven your case that fur farming is cruel, so, again, you are practicing calumny, which is a very serious sin, much unlike the wearing or use of fur. You also keep saying fur is a “fashion statement, a symbol of wealth…materialism…” Sounds a lot like you have an envy issue going on as well. Have you considered that your statements might be evidence of sinning against the 10th Commandment?

4elise, I have not problem having a discussion with you. But I do have a problem having a discussion with someone who lies. Marfran’s statement that I am a factory fur farmer is a lie. In fact, I’ve never been a fur farmer; I merely grew up on a fur farm, so I know what happens on one. I have stated over and over again that ranch raised mink are not killed by electrocution, which was another statement Marfran kept repeating over and over, and, since it is untrue, that statement is also a lie. In short, Marfran has no credibility with anyone who knows the truth. As you have noticed, I have not accused you or anyone else of lying, because you haven’t. But Marfran has continued to repeat untruths even after she’s been called on them.

I know you aren’t calling me a liar mmsiciliana - and I don’t think Marfran said that the animals raised on YOUR family’s farm were killed by electrocution - but sadly many animals that come from China are subjected to this - I know it is really difficult to have strong discussions on these threads but I know it can be done - Marfran - because of her background, like you - feels passionately about this topic. We all bring to the table our history and our experience and that can make this a real challenge! Just a quick search comes up with this: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_Animals_killed_to_make_Fur_products and it was only in 2006 that it was banned in New York hsus.org/furfree/news/press_releases/new_york_first_state_ban_electrocution_fur_082907.html — so while your experience doesn’t reflect this case - it is documented and this is why some like Marfran feel so strongly and do repeat the issue.

So I just want to say that this is a strong topic and I hope we can continue it and continue to offer each other personal respect even if we disagree with each other.

 

[mmsiciliana]

I know you aren’t calling me a liar mmsiciliana - and I don’t think Marfran said that the animals raised on YOUR family’s farm were killed by electrocution - but sadly many animals that come from China are subjected to this - I know it is really difficult to have strong discussions on these threads but I know it can be done - Marfran - because of her background, like you - feels passionately about this topic. We all bring to the table our history and our experience and that can make this a real challenge! Just a quick search comes up with this: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_Animals_killed_to_make_Fur_products and it was only in 2006 that it was banned in New York hsus.org/furfree/news/press_releases/new_york_first_state_ban_electrocution_fur_082907.html — so while your experience doesn’t reflect this case - it is documented and this is why some like Marfran feel so strongly and do repeat the issue.

So I just want to say that this is a strong topic and I hope we can continue it and continue to offer each other personal respect even if we disagree with each other.

Very good, 4elise. Then Marfran needs to say she objects to Chinese raised fur, not all farm raised fur and particularly not American ranch raised fur. (BTW–there is a huge difference in the quality of American raised mink and Chinese raised mink.) And regardless of Marfran’s views, or mine, the title of the thread is the Ethics of Fur. And according to the CCC, the use of animals for food and clothing is moral.

BTW, as I stated before, I personally choose to restrict my purchase of things from China, if at all possible. My clothing is either made by myself or in Lithuania or the USA. I prefer to buy used toys on ebay for my grandchildren rather than lead painted new toys from China. I prefer to buy shoes that have been made in Brazil. Look at what the pet food imported from China did to so many of our pets, and what the drywall imported from China is doing to so many homeowners. And I don’t trust buying goods from a country that treats its own citizens the way China does.

 

[4elise]

You alsocannot claim that you are refusing to eat meat or wear fur because to eat meat or wear fur is immoral or unethical according to the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

?

I do not to eat meat, fish, dairy, eggs, wear fur, or leather because I do not NEED to, and I understand the section of the Catechism that says that it is wrong to cause the **unnecessary **suffering or death of an animal to support this belief.

I believe this SUPPORTS my choice - does that make sense if I word it that way?

I am not (nor do I believe anyone else is) calling anyone who does otherwise immoral or unethical.

 

[severus68]

Originally Posted by severus68
You would reflect poorlyly on Catholics by putting down fellow Christians.

We are supposed to be good stewards of God’s creation and will have to answer to God one day.

This thread is about the ethics of fur. Anyway, there is nohing in the Bible that says we sin if we refuse to eat meat or wear fur.

We can make individual decisions not to eat meat, use fur and believe we are good stewards of God’s creation by doing so particularly today.

Everyone chooses passages that supports his/her view.

MMSiciliana wrote: A “cafeteria Catholic”–one who picks and chooses what teachings of the Church we will believe and which he won’t is not a Catholic–he is a Protestant, by definition of the word. A Protestant is one who protests some teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s not a put-down.

And anyway there is nothing in the Bible that says we sin if we choose to eat meat or wear fur. And, there is nothing in the Catechism that says we sin if we choose to eat meat or wear fur. Therefore, eating meat and wearing fur are moral choices that can be made. Therefore, it follows logically that eating meat and wearing fur is ethical. To prove your contention that it is unethical to eat meat or wear fur, you would have to show me where it says in the Bible and/or the Catechism of the Catholic Church that either is prohibited by God or the teachings of the Catholic Church. You and the others have been unable to do so, so the question is answered in the affirmative.

---

Protestant

---

One who protests; – originally applied to those who adhered to Luther, and protested against, or made a solemn declaration of dissent from, a decree of the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529, against the Reformers, and appealed to a general council; – now used in a popular sense to designate any Christian who does not belong to the Roman Catholic or the Greek Church.

---

Making a protest; protesting.

---

Of or pertaining to the faith and practice of those Christians who reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church; as, Protestant writers.

---

You said “Everyone chooses passages that supports his/her view.” Following that through logically means you are a Protestant in the sense of the 2nd and 3rd definitions above. My point was that you have to take the whole Bible and the whole Catechism, not just take verses out of context and claim they mean what you want them to mean. There is only ONE truth. Either it’s morally right to use animals for food and clothing (as the Catechism says) or it’s morally wrong–for EVERYONE. Again, that does not preclude the possibility that you may choose NOT to engage in some activity that is morally right to engage in. For instance, some people do not choose to marry and thereby give up the right to engage in sexual relations with someone else. That doesn’t make them bad people. But it also does not follow that all who do choose to marry are therefore bad people because they choose to engage in something that is moral. You alsocannot claim that you are refusing to eat meat or wear fur because to eat meat or wear fur is immoral or unethical according to the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

So I am protesting? What please? So I am rejecting the authority of the RCC? If I went on what some Catholics say and do, I would have left the Church. Perhaps before you should think before you accuse others.of being against the RCC, being liars and what not.

The analogy of marriage is not correct. You do not cause suffering if you chose to marry. If I do not need fur to keep warm today as there are alternatives (cheaper too) then I have come to the conclusion that to use fur would be to cause needless suffering and would be wrong. Others may not have come to this conlusion. It doe not men they are bad per se.

 

[mmsiciliana]

Originally Posted by mmsiciliana
You also cannot claim that you are refusing to eat meat or wear fur because to eat meat or wear fur is immoral or unethical according to the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

?

I do not to eat meat, fish, dairy, eggs, wear fur, or leather because I do not NEED to, and I understand the section of the Catechism that says that it is wrong to cause the **unnecessary **suffering or death of an animal to support this belief.

I believe this SUPPORTS my choice - does that make sense if I word it that way?

I am not (nor do I believe anyone else is) calling anyone who does otherwise immoral or unethical.

1. Therefore, correct me if I’m wrong, you find the wearing of fur problematic for you, but not for anyone else. So, it follows, that wearing fur is not unethical for the general population, correct? In fact, you are sort of following St. Francis of Assisi, who usually did not eat meat, but did not say everyone should not eat meat, am I correct?
2. If no one is calling anyone who does wear fur immoral or unethical, why is the thread titled “Ethics of Fur”?

 

[mmsiciliana]

You do not cause suffering if you chose to marry .

Be very, very careful with what you say here! Marriage is a good, but that doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s a good for everyone!

 

[mmsiciliana]

So I am protesting? What please? \QUOTE]

YOU said “Everyone picks and chooses which passages support his/her views.” YOU chose the verse from the Bible that says human beings are made in the image and likeness of God as a proof verse. When it was pointed out to you that it also says in the Bible that human beings are given dominion over other living creatures, you referred to that belief as a belief of “superior” (your quotes, not mine) human beings who are the worst predators on earth and who have managed to muck up the environment and basically mess up all of creation–therefore, they’re really not all that superior–they just think they are. Am I correct that this reflects your thinking?

 

[mmsiciliana]

If I do not need fur to keep warm today as there are alternatives (cheaper too) then I have come to the conclusion that to use fur would be to cause needless suffering and would be wrong. Others may not have come to this conlusion. It doe not men they are bad per se.

So, correct me if I’m wrong–you’ve stated that people will be judged by God for their choices regarding fur wearing, have you not? Doesn’t that mean that you think the use of fur for clothing is wrong–not just for you–but for everyone?

 

[TOP]

That’s what I say. Who wears fur anymore these days? Do they even wear it in the Arctic??? There are much warmer materials for the Arctic. Dude, have you been reading this thread??? We have a factory farm mink rancher here trying to convince us to wear mink!!! MINK is so passe. So are diamonds. (Don’t worry–if you already have one you can keep it–I don’t have one–don’t plan to get any–don’t want any blood on my hands.)

Yes, the topic is factory farm fur!!! Cruel, unneccessary, a passe fashion statement, a symbol of wealth…materialism…

So TOP, if you are tired of the animal threads, should we start one on BLOOD DIAMONDS???

DUDE!! You ain’t getting any traction, just spinning tires.

 

[4elise]

Originally Posted by mmsiciliana
You also cannot claim that you are refusing to eat meat or wear fur because to eat meat or wear fur is immoral or unethical according to the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

1. Therefore, correct me if I’m wrong, you find the wearing of fur problematic for you, but not for anyone else. So, it follows, that wearing fur is not unethical for the general population, correct? In fact, you are sort of following St. Francis of Assisi, who usually did not eat meat, but did not say everyone should not eat meat, am I correct?
2. If no one is calling anyone who does wear fur immoral or unethical, why is the thread titled “Ethics of Fur”?

#1 — is much closer to what I want to say - yes. I do have to add that it would make me very happy if others shared my view - I think this is very understandable.

2 — I can appreciate the need to discuss this in a larger point for several reasons (a) the way the animals are raised (not so much on your families farm) but since so much of it comes from China - (b) use of resources - i.e. as Catholics can we justify spending so much on an item that in most application is a ‘fashion statement’ and not to be a means to keep warm when other options are readily available, cost less and do as good a job (but I’m sure are not as soft)​

So, yes I think that it is appropriate to look at this as a discussion of Catholic ethics - we could have a discussion on the ethics of luxury cars, that might also deal with resources too - it is not based on envy - just an opportunity to discuss where we should put our treasure.

Blessings.

 

[severus68]

So, correct me if I’m wrong–you’ve stated that people will be judged by God for their choices regarding fur wearing, have you not? Doesn’t that mean that you think the use of fur for clothing is wrong–not just for you–but for everyone?

I said we will be judged by God, period. I would like everyone to stop using fur,yes. I cannot however force the issue.

 

[mmsiciliana]

I said we will be judged by God, period. I would like everyone to stop using fur,yes. I cannot however force the issue.

So, let me ask this…not trying to sidetrack, just trying to get inside your head…what about the abortion issue? Would you like everyone to stop getting abortions?

 

[bigfootbob]

I am sure that there is something to be said for how long stuff lasts - but I’ve got a pair of Payless boots that are all synthetic that I’ve had 5 years ($19.99)- and for keeping warm I’ve always practiced the layers rule - so might not be able to bend my elbows (again this is a joke) but can be done with cotton, and synthetic fabrics!

You probably just walk with your boots. I need boots that are tough, and there’s nothing better than leather in my opinion.

 

[mmsiciliana]

1. Therefore, correct me if I’m wrong, you find the wearing of fur problematic for you, but not for anyone else. So, it follows, that wearing fur is not unethical for the general population, correct? In fact, you are sort of following St. Francis of Assisi, who usually did not eat meat, but did not say everyone should not eat meat, am I correct?
2. If no one is calling anyone who does wear fur immoral or unethical, why is the thread titled “Ethics of Fur”?

#1 — is much closer to what I want to say - yes. I do have to add that it would make me very happy if others shared my view - I think this is very understandable.

2 — I can appreciate the need to discuss this in a larger point for several reasons (a) the way the animals are raised (not so much on your families farm) but since so much of it comes from China - (b) use of resources - i.e. as Catholics can we justify spending so much on an item that in most application is a ‘fashion statement’ and not to be a means to keep warm when other options are readily available, cost less and do as good a job (but I’m sure are not as soft)​

So, yes I think that it is appropriate to look at this as a discussion of Catholic ethics - we could have a discussion on the ethics of luxury cars, that might also deal with resources too - it is not based on envy - just an opportunity to discuss where we should put our treasure.

Blessings.

OK, now I feel like we’re getting somewhere. So, back to question 1. Where does your view differ from my understanding of your view? In other words, where am I “off”?

And 2. I can see having a discussion about the ethics of wearing fur based on the idea of how do we use our treasure. But that is not what the original poster had in mind, is it?

 

[4elise]

1. Therefore, correct me if I’m wrong, you find the wearing of fur problematic for you, but not for anyone else. So, it follows, that wearing fur is not unethical for the general population, correct? In fact, you are sort of following St. Francis of Assisi, who usually did not eat meat, but did not say everyone should not eat meat, am I correct?
2. If no one is calling anyone who does wear fur immoral or unethical, why is the thread titled “Ethics of Fur”?

OK, now I feel like we’re getting somewhere. So, back to question 1. Where does your view differ from my understanding of your view? In other words, where am I “off”?

And 2. I can see having a discussion about the ethics of wearing fur based on the idea of how do we use our treasure. But that is not what the original poster had in mind, is it?

I’m glad that you feel like we are ‘communicating’!!

So on 1) I believe that you might have catigorized the position as more a ‘live and let live’ kind of attitude – and that would imply that I didn’t think it was really important - so on the sliding scale if it were pictured on one side - the ‘live and let live’ position and on the other ‘wising I could share information with everyone that would influence them to make the same decision’ I’m definetly closer to the later…

1. I think Marfran may have had more of the confined animal operations like those ones that I shared that are in China - or perhaps those trophy hunters for exotic skins initially in mind - in general raising animals for a use that seems ‘unnecessary’ ---- but when talking about ethics - in the course of this discussion I know that I and others have brought this issue of resources up - and in doing so it is easy to be misunderstood and be accused of jealousy or envy - when that isn’t the point one is trying to make - and then the discussion breaks down - we all get defensive, right?

I hope you feel like we are continuing to be able to get somewhere!
Blessings

 

[severus68]

So, let me ask this…not trying to sidetrack, just trying to get inside your head…what about the abortion issue? Would you like everyone to stop getting abortions?

It is digressing but I will answer. Yes, I would like there not to be any abortions and I would like people to help on that like Mother Theresa did.

 

[JaneGrey]

You do not have the knowledge necessary to make that assessment.
You actually have no idea what the needs or wants of the others here are.

And you do? If so i d like to know how exactly it is that you or anyone else needs fur? Im not pretending to know what the needs and wants of strangers are, but living in an extreme temperate climate and not needing to use fur I think I know what Im talking about, thank you very much.

Perhaps that is the crux of the matter. There are a number of judgements going on concerning needs that are completely without basis in reality.

If you are certain you are not doing anything wrong, why so anxious about being judged by others on an internet forum? There is basis to reality, you just refuse to accept it. However, no one is forcing you to their side either.

There has been plenty of agreement concerning the needless suffering being wrong, and indeed the CCC as well backs this up.

My statement that the needless suffereing of animals is anti-Catholic derives from the CCC dear.

That is not your right, it is mine.
It is not the place of anyone else to tell me what I need. That is an authority left to God and his Church.

I wish I had the time and energy to dictate to people what I think they should do with their lives, as you imply I do. I make no secret that I think no human beings should stick to wearing their own skins they were born with. However I also said it was my opinion which I was putting out there, as I have a right to. I can only hope someone agrees with me, doesnt mean Im telling them what to do.

hear many vegans speak indignantly that they ‘are not judging other’ yet they fail to see that is precisely what they are doing. As soon as they try to tell others they do not ‘need’ something, they are guilty of telling others what to do.
As soon as they utilize the CCC to justify their own personal choices, they by default place the actions of others that do notI act as they do outside of the CCC.
And YES, that is in fact telling others that they are sinning, that is in fact a judgement upon others. And yes, that causes arguments.

Causes arguments because people do not like or agree with what the other side is saying. It is not a new phenomenon. Vegans make their choice because they felt it was the right one and they have the right to inform others why. Only you can make yourself feel guilty. I have not read a single person on this thread demanding that you or anyone else give up your meat eating ways. No one is telling you what to do.