Help understanding natural law on these issues

[po18guy]

Actually that vision was in respect of Peter’s reluctance to mix ith Gentiles and to tell him to do so and preach to all. If you read further and the Bible notes?

Whose notes? Regardless of Peter’s mission, “kill and eat” is rather plain. Peter was perhaps the most intransigent of the Jewish Apostles (Galatians 2), and had to be told plainly that the Mosaic laws no longer applied. Note also that nowhere does NT scripture proscribe the eating of any animal. This remains a morally neutral personal matter - save for the treatment of the animals before slaughter.

 

[Khalid]

I will just respond to those words of yours that I have bolded.

Jesus works well in a vegan culture or rather some vegans are happy to follow Christ. We even have a group “Catholic Vegans and Vegetarians” on CAF.

Our canine teeth are not like those of carnivores or even like the bear, an omnivore. Veganism has not been condemned by God.

Veganism is condemned in the Bible after the flood.
The Bible is the Word of God.
We live after the flood.
Therefore, God has condemned veganism.

(That’s fast and loose logic with one fallacy in it, but the premises are true.)

The Prince of the Apostles is commanded to eat of meat in Acts, and is chastised for refusing. In any case, as I’ve said, pre-modern man could not live as a vegetarian; natural law contradicts the practice; and, in a culture that did not eat meat or sacrifice by blood and fire, Jesus would not have worked, at least not to the understanding of the people (the metaphysical effect would be identical) - the people could never have understood the concept of “the blood of the lamb”.

Whether a person will eat blood or not is a personal choice: the Council of Jerusalem forbade it, yet only the Orthodox keep it in full. I follow the decision of the Council, as it includes a ban on fornication as well as the eating of blood; but it also includes a ban on eating food sacrificed to false gods or idols, which stricture is made plainly clear in Paul’s epistles to have no binding force. The blood thing is likely the same. The fornication thing is prohibited by God and Our Lord himself, with no human council able to alter it.

 

[Hadrianus]

To sum up in one sentence Natural Law refers to ethics. It should not be confused with what is ‘natural’ in nature. Even could it be established that at some early time in our history, humans were vegetarians, the point is moot, because it is not unethical to eat animals. I repeat vegetarians who feel their conscience will not allow them to eat meat or fish, but I’m pretty sure they would agree that if they our someone was starving to death, they would concede the acceptability of consuming meat in an extreme situation. iF there were no alternative.

 

[severus68]

Whose notes? Regardless of Peter’s mission, “kill and eat” is rather plain. Peter was perhaps the most intransigent of the Jewish Apostles (Galatians 2), and had to be told plainly that the Mosaic laws no longer applied. Note also that nowhere does NT scripture proscribe the eating of any animal. This remains a morally neutral personal matter - save for the treatment of the animals before slaughter.

The notes at the bottom of your Bible.

I was only responding to your reference to that passage. I do not intend to go into any full blown discussion as this always blows up and a few get real nasty (not referring to you).

 

[severus68]

Veganism is condemned in the Bible after the flood.
The Bible is the Word of God.
We live after the flood.
Therefore, God has condemned veganism.

(That’s fast and loose logic with one fallacy in it, but the premises are true.)

The Prince of the Apostles is commanded to eat of meat in Acts, and is chastised for refusing. In any case, as I’ve said, pre-modern man could not live as a vegetarian; natural law contradicts the practice; and, in a culture that did not eat meat or sacrifice by blood and fire, Jesus would not have worked, at least not to the understanding of the people (the metaphysical effect would be identical) - the people could never have understood the concept of “the blood of the lamb”.

Whether a person will eat blood or not is a personal choice: the Council of Jerusalem forbade it, yet only the Orthodox keep it in full. I follow the decision of the Council, as it includes a ban on fornication as well as the eating of blood; but it also includes a ban on eating food sacrificed to false gods or idols, which stricture is made plainly clear in Paul’s epistles to have no binding force. The blood thing is likely the same. The fornication thing is prohibited by God and Our Lord himself, with no human council able to alter it.

I was only responding on those points.
That ‘we live after the flood’ shows God condemns veganism? Sorry I do not understand.

That vision to Peter is not to be read literally.

 

[4elise]

Veganism is condemned in the Bible after the flood.
The Bible is the Word of God.
We live after the flood.
Therefore, God has condemned veganism.

(That’s fast and loose logic with one fallacy in it, but the premises are true.)

fast and loose indeed… and no, I don’t think the premises is true.

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

ARTICLE 7
THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT

Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may *(note not must be) *be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 **It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. ** (I don’t need to eat animals to live therefore their death for my food is needless) 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 acknowledge that eating meat has been a big part of the history of human development (provided it is cooked) and in some places in the world provide, even today, the needed protein for human growth and development — TODAY, IN THE WESTERN DEVELOPED WORLD — it is needless to cause animals to suffer or die for my breakfast, lunch or dinner - because there are healthy (healthier) (and delicious) alternatives - someone recently posted on another thread the need for us to follow a well informed conscious - the more one learns about how food comes to our plate, the more one may question the ‘traditional western diet’ and consider a move to a plant based diet - is that diet of meat, dairy, fish selfish? is it in keeping with my faith? is it in keeping with the teaching of the church?

I (and many others) have concluded that living our faith ALSO means making choices that involve our choice of what ends up on our plate… this choice is most certainly informed by my Catholic faith.

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken movingly about the exploitation of all beings, particularly of farmed animals. When asked about the rights of animals in a 2002 interview, he said, “That is a very serious question. At any rate, we can see that they are given into our care, that we cannot just do whatever we want with them. Animals, too, are God’s creatures . . . . Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.”

 

[John21652]

fast and loose indeed… and no, I don’t think the premises is true.

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

ARTICLE 7
THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT

Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may *(note not must be) *be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. (I don’t need to eat animals to live therefore their death for my food is needless) 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 acknowledge that eating meat has been a big part of the history of human development (provided it is cooked) and in some places in the world provide, even today, the needed protein for human growth and development — TODAY, IN THE WESTERN DEVELOPED WORLD — it is needless to cause animals to suffer or die for my breakfast, lunch or dinner - because there are healthy (healthier) (and delicious) alternatives - someone recently posted on another thread the need for us to follow a well informed conscious - the more one learns about how food comes to our plate, the more one may question the ‘traditional western diet’ and consider a move to a plant based diet - is that diet of meat, dairy, fish selfish? is it in keeping with my faith? is it in keeping with the teaching of the church?

I (and many others) have concluded that living our faith ALSO means making choices that involve our choice of what ends up on our plate… this choice is most certainly informed by my Catholic faith.

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken movingly about the exploitation of all beings, particularly of farmed animals. When asked about the rights of animals in a 2002 interview, he said, “That is a very serious question. At any rate, we can see that they are given into our care, that we cannot just do whatever we want with them. Animals, too, are God’s creatures . . . . Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.”

And you are guilty of very selective choosing of what you think supports your vegan cause. I’ve added a bit more colour.

Your regular “beef” (excuse the pun ) is against the so called factory farming as practiced in the U.S. Your thesis is that humanity should exist on green stuff alone. That is not possible without the use of animal resources, as per the Catehism. Your reference to the so called “traditional western diet” is a fallacy. There is no such thing as a “traditional western diet”. What the various diets of the various countries in the western hemipshere do have in common is a traditional mix of meat and plant products.

The illogicality of your position is to attempt to denigrate the eating of meat by resorting to the Catechism and yet the Catechism explicitly states we may ethically use animals for scientific research. That is contrary to any suggestion that we shouldn’t eat them.

The thread topic is about the relationship between eating animals for food and the Natural Law. You have not disproven that relationship and you can’t. You are taking this thread way off topic in order to prove the utility of veganism. Like they say in the movies, go get your own thread.

 

[4elise]

And you are guilty of very selective choosing of what you think supports your vegan cause. I’ve added a bit more colour.

Your regular “beef” (excuse the pun ) is against the so called factory farming as practiced in the U.S. Your thesis is that humanity should exist on green stuff alone. That is not possible without the use of animal resources, as per the Catehism. Your reference to the so called “traditional western diet” is a fallacy. There is no such thing as a “traditional western diet”. What the various diets of the various countries in the western hemipshere do have in common is a traditional mix of meat and plant products.

You are right John - I guess what I am referring to is the ‘traditional American diet’ - often called here ‘western diet’ here - high in animal protein, salt, — but I digress yet again in response to your post…

The illogicality of your position is to attempt to denigrate the eating of meat by resorting to the Catechism and yet the Catechism explicitly states we may ethically use animals for scientific research. That is contrary to any suggestion that we shouldn’t eat them.

my emphasis is on the 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. ** I do not NEED animals for food - therefore it is contrary to my human dignity to cause them to suffer and die for something I do not need. This seems pretty clear to me. I do not dispute that the Catechism says "Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if** it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

The thread topic is about the relationship between eating animals for food and the Natural Law. You have not disproven that relationship and you can’t. You are taking this thread way off topic in order to prove the utility of veganism. Like they say in the movies, go get your own thread.

When someone post a response - for example

Originally Posted by Khalid View Post
Veganism is condemned in the Bible after the flood.
The Bible is the Word of God.
We live after the flood.
Therefore, God has condemned veganism.

I believe it is within reason to provide information on what the Church teaches as it relates to animals - given such a strong assertion as ‘God has condemned veganism’ -

So, sorry to cause you to roll your eyes so much - I’ll be happy to see you on another thread!

Peace,

 

[Khalid]

Anthropogenic climate change is also bunk.

 

[surritter]

To the OP: Here is an analogy.

We are given feet so that we may walk upright, so that is the “natural” use. But suppose I use my foot to lift a toy off the floor. Or suppose I use my foot and some toe puppets to put on a puppet show (silly, but I’m trying to think of anything).

These uses are not what the foot was designed for, but do you think they are immoral? Hopefully not. So it’s the same thing. Even if it were shown that were are herbivore by nature, to eat meat is not violating the natural law.

 

[Nate13]

Nate13,
Thanks for the site explaining natural law, it was helpful.
The following is what I thought was the cornel of natural law.

1978 The natural law is a participation in God’s wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

It sounds to me almost like the American Constitution, freedoms, rights, human dignity, and so forth.

The big problem with natural law is that the interpretation of it varies from individual to individual especially when the person is not religiously connected, or where there is no divine law.

Yeah the Catechism does a good job of explaining it. I like how you immediately thought of the American Constitution because our Constitution was based in a foundation of natural law. Natural law has a judge to uphold and protect it just like the Constitution does. That judge and protector is the Church who is given such authority by God who is the ultimate judge and interpreter. The Constitution would be worthless without someone to judge and protect its original purpose and meaning. The Catechism talks about this idea here:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

Also:

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

So in this question of man being legitimately carnivious, we have the divine law to guide us which incorporates the natural law. But then someone who does not have this, must be guided by the natural law, interpreted by his judgemental reason called conscience. And if two consciences have a difference of opinion about the natural law, then ??? And the prime example of this would be the question of carnivorous eating in this thread.

Back to the quote above though, the interpreter of natural law is God since he is the one who created us. The Church has been given the responsibility to stand as a pillar of Truth and defense of this. Just because two consciences disagree does not mean there is no objective truth. Ignorance is also many times not an excuse for not knowing the truth. I suggest you read this section from the Catechism on conscience:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

This in particular:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

So would there be a way to identify natural laws just as we identify divine laws?
Just asking. What do you think?

I don’t ever think of it as there being “natural laws”. There is a natural law which is human reason:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

The Catechism also expresses it as such:

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

Notice how the Catechism speaks of natural law. It talks about the natural law. There is no list of natural laws. Natural law is right reason, which must be based in God. Divine law helps guide us to understand natural law more clearly and the purposes for our creation.

Natural law is expressed as clearly as divine law is in the Bible. Divine law in many cases is just a reiteration of natural law. Think about how long humanity existed before the law was given to Israel through Moses? Were all the people before that free to do whatever they wanted because they did not have the law? No, the had human reason given to them by God. They were able to clearly see the purposes of their bodies just as clearly as we should be able to today.

 

[Cristiano]

If it can be reasonably demonstrated that humans are vegetarians by nature would it be contrary to Natural Law to eat meat?

If so, and Natural law is the ground for all positive law and in accord with Divine law (which maybe isn’t the case as I do not fully understand Natural Law) than how can there be a concession for eating meat in Christianity and our Soceity but not a concession for other issues contrary to Natural Law such as homosexuality and contraception?

I have not gone through the whole thread but I think that it is quite simple to address your point. The answer to your first question is yes. If you could demonstrate that humans are vegetarians by nature then eating meat is against natural law.

The problem that there is not demonstration that humans are vegetarian by nature. If you are a Christian it is even easier for you to understand why. Christ, the perfect man, was not a vegetarian he followed the Jewish dietary laws and he ate fish. I am not going to elaborate scientific theories because we are talking among Catholics and that argument is sufficient.

 

[Nate13]

I have not gone through the whole thread but I think that it is quite simple to address your point. The answer to your first question is yes. If you could demonstrate that humans are vegetarians by nature then eating meat is against natural law.

And since its obvious by observation that we are not vegetarians, he should have his answer. I’m eating meat and it provides part of the nutrients my body needs. That makes me not a vegetarian…

Lets also be smart and use divine revelation to help inform us as to what human reason should tell us already. From the Bible we learn that man has dominion over the animals. In Gen 4:2, who have Abel being described as a shepherd and offering the first of his flock as an offering to God…

 

[adrift]

Actually that vision was in respect of Peter’s reluctance to mix ith Gentiles and to tell him to do so and preach to all. If you read further and the Bible notes?

This was just part of what is happening.

Notes from the NAB

6 [9-16] The vision is intended to prepare Peter to share the food of Cornelius’ household without qualms of conscience (⇒ Acts 10:48). The necessity of such instructions to Peter reveals that at first not even the apostles fully grasped the implications of Jesus’ teaching on the law. In Acts, the initial insight belongs to Stephen.

8 [17-23] The arrival of the Gentile emissaries with their account of the angelic apparition illuminates Peter’s vision: he is to be prepared to admit Gentiles, who were considered unclean like the animals of his vision, into the Christian community.

The problem that there is not demonstration that humans are vegetarian by nature. If you are a Christian it is even easier for you to understand why. Christ, the perfect man, was not a vegetarian he followed the Jewish dietary laws and he ate fish.

Jesus also ate lamb. That is the best evidence to me that there is nothing wrong in eating meat nor is there anything wrong in not eating meat.

 

[Khalid]

If you could demonstrate that humans are vegetarians by nature then eating meat is against natural law.

No, it wouldn’t, as long as revelation claimed that men were allowed to eat meat. In order for natural law to be so, it would have to 1) be in accord with revelation, or at least not contradictory to any part of it, and 2) be in accord with correct reason. As I have said before, if the Decalogue included ten commandments instead of nine (even though Augustine split the nine we have into ten), and the tenth was, “thou shalt contracept, and, if thou shalt fail, murder thy child”, all other things being equal, including our biology, reason, etc., no amount of human reason could abrogate a command of God - any command of God. The command would be binding, just as the concept of the Trinity is widely considered by many people who think on it to do damage to human reason and Peano arithmetic (although it does not seem unreasonable to me on ontological grounds*), it can not be overturned by human reason. It is a revelation of God, which surpasses all faculties of mankind: “for the folly of God is greater than the wisdom of men”.

Reason alone can not be set above revelation as an arbiter, only below it as an interpreter.

*One reason being, what is a computer? It is a thing. What is “is”? “To be”. What is “to be”? Being. A computer is a being. It is non-personal. A man is a being, personal, but of only one person. God is a being, personal, of three persons. No damage is done to reason, and there is no reason to think, that as we know of by direct experience both non-personal and uni-personal beings, that multi-personal beings or a tri-personal being can not exist or is an inherently absurd construct.

 

[Cristiano]

No, it wouldn’t, as long as revelation claimed that men were allowed to eat meat. In order for natural law to be so, it would have to 1) be in accord with revelation, or at least not contradictory to any part of it, and 2) be in accord with correct reason.

Reason alone can not be set above revelation as an arbiter, only below it as an interpreter.

You are using a logical fallacy here, there is nothing wrong with my “if then” statement. Here you are really stating that is impossible to prove that is human nature to be a vegetarian. That is might be a true statement but it is still consistent with what I said: “If you could demonstrate that humans are vegetarians by nature then eating meat is against natural law.” You are saying that the assumption is not possible thus the sequitur is false, and that is fine with me but my statement still holds true.
That was exactly my initial point, my statement is true and in order to prove that natural law calls for being vegetarians someone must prove that it is part of our nature, and we know (including revelation) that such a statement is not possible.

 

[Khalid]

If human nature was **conclusively demonstrated to be vegetarian, but revelation *(in this case, simplify it to “the Bible”) commanded man to eat meat, man would be required to eat meat - even if it would kill him. It isn’t, it doesn’t, so we don’t. But, if it did, human reason can never contradict divine revelation.

*If it came to the point of one revelation seemingly contradicting another, that is no longer a point of natural law, but mostly of exegesis and possibly lower criticism (to determine if the command is authentic).

 

[Cristiano]

If human nature was demonstrated to be vegetarian, but revelation (in this case, simplify it to “the Bible”) commanded man to eat meat, man would be required to eat meat - even if it would kill him. It isn’t, it doesn’t, so we don’t. But, if it did, human reason can never contradict divine revelation.

You cannot demonstrate that human nature is being vegetarian, it is impossible. We know that because the perfect man, Jesus, is not a vegetarian. I agree with your final point but I think that you err with the logic on how to get to it.

 

[Cristiano]

If human nature was **conclusively demonstrated to be vegetarian, but revelation *(in this case, simplify it to “the Bible”) commanded man to eat meat, man would be required to eat meat - even if it would kill him. It isn’t, it doesn’t, so we don’t. But, if it did, human reason can never contradict divine revelation.

*If it came to the point of one revelation seemingly contradicting another, that is no longer a point of natural law, but mostly of exegesis and possibly lower criticism (to determine if the command is authentic).

Human nature is defined by God during his creation process and God does not contradict himself because He cannot change. Thus God’s will is the same in our nature and it is the same in his commands.

People might think that they are conclusively demonstrating something but we know that somewhere there would be a fallacy. How do we know that? Because it has been revealed to us.

 

[Khalid]

I’m not saying that man is vegetarian - in fact, I am certain he is not. I am merely using speculation (that is, hypothetical, “in any possible world” philosophizing) to draw out an example of the limits of human reason, whereas it seemed one poster in this thread would place reason, under the guise of natural law, as an arbiter over revelation itself.