How far can we go when survival is on the line

[brockmac]

I was watching a show that mentioned the Donner party and began to wonder, if survival depended on it, would it be morally acceptable to eat the flesh of a deceased human being? I know it is a grave sin to kill, but if the person died of natural reasons, would it be morally licit to eat the meat of a recently deceased person?

I have no plans, intentions, or desire to do so, but the Donner party thing sparked my curiosity. I have not found anywhere in the Cathecism where cannibalism is specifically prohibited, which kind of supprised me to be honest.

 

[rpp]

Old Testament Law specifically outlawed cannibalism. The restriction was in a general sense, that is not to eat the flesh of a dead person. It said nothing about killing people in order to eat them, but of course murder is also forbidden.

I can recall another case where survivors at the flesh of those who had died of natural causes. In the 1970s in South America, a plane crashed in the Andes mountains. The survivors were nearly all Catholic. A book and a movie was made Alive.

I think this is a very difficult issue. In the case of the South American plane crash, they struggled with the morality of this. This is especially highlighted in the the book (Pier Paul Reed Alive: Story of the Andes Survivors) It was difficult and some chose to starve to death rather than consume their deceased friends. I do not know what I would do in their situation.

 

[clskier]

I have not found anywhere in the Cathecism where cannibalism is specifically prohibited, which kind of supprised me to be honest.

Why would this surprise you? Don’t we do this every Sunday at Mass?

 

[Matt_Collins]

I can recall another case where survivors at the flesh of those who had died of natural causes. In the 1970s in South America, a plane crashed in the Andes mountains. The survivors were nearly all Catholic. A book and a movie was made Alive.

I read this book many years ago when I was much younger. I remember it being a very good book. The survivors of the crash really did struggle with the issue, and everyone respected the decision made by the others. They were very spiritual about it, and while they didn’t confuse the issue in any way with Holy Communion, some of the survivors did use the Eucharist as a sort of model for making their decision.

Also, some time after the survivors were rescued they met Pope Paul VI, in which they expressed their moral reservations about having eaten the bodies of their dead comrades, and the Pope told them that they had done nothing wrong and that they shouldn’t ever worry about that again.

So I guess that’s a pretty good guide.

 

[masterjedi747]

Why would this surprise you? Don’t we do this every Sunday at Mass?

No, we don’t. Because there’s a difference the flesh of a dead human person and the flesh of Christ’s glorified living body.

But as far as the “would it be morally acceptable to eat the flesh of a deceased human being” question, I believe the answer is generally “yes, but only under extraordinary circumstances”.

 

[BlaineTog]

I would say yes. It’s regrettable but not sinful if they died anyway. I can’t cite anything, but it just seems reasonable.

 

[wjp984]

Well then the question comes up as to whether it’s a morally neutral decison. For example, would those who chose to starve to death be guilty of any sin for not doing what was necessary to save themselves? Would they be considered martyrs for their faith? Or would they just be considered neutral and were judged according to whatever state their soul was in at the time.

 

[rwoehmke]

No, we don’t. Because there’s a difference the flesh of a dead human person and the flesh of Christ’s glorified living body.

But as far as the “would it be morally acceptable to eat the flesh of a deceased human being” question, I believe the answer is generally “yes, but only under extraordinary circumstances”.

I thoroughly agree with both answers.

 

[rpp]

I read this book many years ago when I was much younger. I remember it being a very good book. The survivors of the crash really did struggle with the issue, and everyone respected the decision made by the others. They were very spiritual about it, and while they didn’t confuse the issue in any way with Holy Communion, some of the survivors did use the Eucharist as a sort of model for making their decision.

Also, some time after the survivors were rescued they met Pope Paul VI, in which they expressed their moral reservations about having eaten the bodies of their dead comrades, and the Pope told them that they had done nothing wrong and that they shouldn’t ever worry about that again.

So I guess that’s a pretty good guide.

Thank you, Matt. I did not realize that these survivors had met the Pope.

If I recall correctly, many of them struggled with what they had done for years. Reading their stories, not in the book, but follow-up years later, was very sobering and heart-breaking for me. I recall crying as I heard of the struggles (and I am most certainly not a crier.). I mean these men had been forced to eat their friends! I can only imagine the anguish they experience every day.

I think Pope John Paul’s words of comfort to them was great mercy that they all needed.

May God grant them all His Peace.

May God grant that no people ever confront this situation again.

I still do not know what I would do in their predicament.

 

[Caesar517]

No, we don’t. Because there’s a difference the flesh of a dead human person and the flesh of Christ’s glorified living body.

But as far as the “would it be morally acceptable to eat the flesh of a deceased human being” question, I believe the answer is generally “yes, but only under extraordinary circumstances”.

Well said.

In that situation, I don’t think it would be a sin to starve to death either (venial at most). I hope that I would have the strength to do what is necessary to survive, though.

 

[Matt_Collins]

I think Pope John Paul’s words of comfort to them was great mercy that they all needed.

Just to clarify… It was Pope Paul VI they met.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Well then the question comes up as to whether it’s a morally neutral decison. For example, would those who chose to starve to death be guilty of any sin for not doing what was necessary to save themselves? Would they be considered martyrs for their faith? Or would they just be considered neutral and were judged according to whatever state their soul was in at the time.

We’re only obliged to take ordinary means to preserve human life… our own or that of others. We are never under any obligation whatever to take extraordinary means, although we are certainly allowed to. It seems to me that eating one’s friend’s dead body would fall under “extraordinary” means, by any reasonable definition of “ordinary” vs. “extraordinary” I can imagine.

So no, I can’t imagine that those who chose not to eat would be guilty of even a venial sin.

One detail I remember from the book is the dignity with which they treated the bodies. They really took pains to do as little as they could to them.

Also, I’d like to point out that while the topic of eating the bodies does form a significant part of the book, there’s so much more in it that deals with faith, courage, solidarity, team work, hope, perseverance and just the plain mechanics of survival in such an extreme situation. The book is definitely worth reading. If you want to skip over the gory parts there’s still a lot worth reading, if you enjoy an interesting “man vs. wild” story.

The full title of the book is “Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors.”

 

[elts1956]

Well then the question comes up as to whether it’s a morally neutral decison. For example, would those who chose to starve to death be guilty of any sin for not doing what was necessary to save themselves? Would they be considered martyrs for their faith? Or would they just be considered neutral and were judged according to whatever state their soul was in at the time.

I don’t think they would be neutral. They made a decision based on their private beliefs. These may have been religious beliefs, or not, but they certainly were, for them, spiritual and moral beliefs. I would imagine it would be very hard to starve oneself while others were prolonging their lives.

 

[Arrowood]

Why would this surprise you? Don’t we do this every Sunday at Mass?

One difference is that cannibalism is consuming a body as if it were just animal meat, which is disrespectful of the human person. That’s why cannibalism is a sin, and also why burying the dead is a corporal work of mercy. In the Eucharist, we receive the entire Person of Jesus and are intimately united to Him.

Sexual union is a sacramental sign of the same unity. I’m not saying that the Eucharist is sexual, but that the sexual union of two persons is analogous to the intimate union that happens in the Eucharist.

The question of eating human flesh to survive is difficult. The desecration of a human body is sinful. You cannot say that it doesn’t matter because they are dead (it’s not murder, but it is a disrespect of the human person).

Yet, in the circumstance where you are starving to death and you retain respect for the person (as the men from the Alive story reveal through their feelings of guilt), I would judge it to be venial sin rather than mortal.

Does the principle of Double Effect apply here? Hmmm . . . I’ll have to ponder that one.