Is it morally licit to eat a dead human if it is the only way to survive?

[DL82]

I just thought for a change from the usual questions, I’d pose this rather gruesome one.

If your only means of survival is to eat another human being who has already died of natural causes, is that morally licit?

Is cannibalism an ‘objective moral evil’ like abortion, i.e. something that is sinful by the very nature of the act, and can never be justified by its’ consequences?

Does the morality of the situation depend on whether you have any dependent children, etc.

The mortal remains of a human being seem to have certain ‘rights’ to be treated with due respect in Catholic thought, but do these rights belong to a lower order than the right of a living person to survival?

I suppose it goes without saying that this isn’t based on a real life situation in my life, but is purely theoretical. Nonetheless, it isn’t totally pointless, it has had genuine parallels, such as those people who survived the air crash in the Andes.

 

[ready]

I heard from someone on EWTN that it is morally licit. A group of individuals (most or maybe all were Catholic) found themselves stranded somewhere and for survival had to eat dead members of their party. They thought of the passage in the bible "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will not have life within you "and associated their cannibalism experience with Jesus’ members to Jesus’ body itself.

 

[Martin_Luther_1]

The Andes Rugby team had a nice feast, one of them was quoted when asked what eating human was like.

He said “It tasted like chicken”

 

[CatholicGuy22]

I think it is wrong no matter how many kids you have or all the people who depend on you back at home. When we do this we become like animals becuase only animals do this sort of thing. I will rather die knowing that i didn’t resort to horrible thing. Come on seriously if people do this, what really seperates them from animals?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I heard from someone on EWTN that it is morally licit. A group of individuals (most or maybe all were Catholic) found themselves stranded somewhere and for survival had to eat dead members of their party. They thought of the passage in the bible "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will not have life within you "and associated their cannibalism experience with Jesus’ members to Jesus’ body itself.

As I recall it was a plane crash in the Andes. I don’t recall any criticism from a Church source on their action.

 

[MikiBee]

I think that if you ever get THAT hungry to where you start thinking about eating dead people, it’s beyond your reasoning at that point to avoid it. Under extreme hunger, people will eat just about anything to survive, no matter how vile and disgusting. The reasoning part of the brain shuts off, and you’re basically working off the primal parts of the brain. In fact, somehow people who had no prior knowledge of human anatomy know instinctively which parts of the body (be it human or otherwise) provides the most nutrients/calories/fat… and generally go for the liver and other similar part first. I actually did just watch a show on the Learning Channel or some similar channel recently.

I don’t think many people can imagine being THAT hungry in our culture. I can’t imagine it for myself, but I think the human body is capable of about anything under extreme circumstances.

God knows the circumstances. At that point, it really is beyond human control.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

I think it is wrong no matter how many kids you have or all the people who depend on you back at home. When we do this we become like animals becuase only animals do this sort of thing. I will rather die knowing that i didn’t resort to horrible thing. Come on seriously if people do this, what really seperates them from animals?

I totally agree here. Just because we’re starving, doesn’t mean despair and resorting to eat another human is acceptable. There has to be some other thing to eat like a plant or animal or something in these extreme situations.

How many people are actually presented with this extreme situation? xD

 

[StrawberryJam]

I totally agree here. Just because we’re starving, doesn’t mean despair and resorting to eat another human is acceptable. There has to be some other thing to eat like a plant or animal or something in these extreme situations.

How many people are actually presented with this extreme situation? xD

As was mentioned, the plane crash in the Andes. Of course, there are other circumstances all around the world at any given time where starvation is observable.

My question for you is, if you are a believer in Christ then what matter would it be if a person could live from your dead body?

What good is that body for you, or anyone when you die?

If you die of starvation, when you could live to go on and care for your wife and family if you simply did eat the food available in a situation where it was the only food available, would your God be angry you did not do what you could to survive?

 

[Rolltide]

The church has ruled on this definitively, as it has happened on a few occasions. It IS morally licit if there is NO other alternative, and the person is already definitively deceased due to natural causes. The church actually classifies it in the same category as organ donation.

 

[grace_singh]

The church has ruled on this definitively, as it has happened on a few occasions. It IS morally licit if there is NO other alternative, and the person is already definitively deceased due to natural causes. The church actually classifies it in the same category as organ donation.

interesting.

still, the idea is pretty troubling. the OT Law prohibits the eating of carrion, and other passages refer to the moral depravity of eating human flesh, specifically the flesh of one’s children, when faced with starvation.

i know that we do not need to follow the OT Law as Christians, but could we not derive prinicpals to be used today from those passages? specifically in this case?

 

[Rolltide]

interesting.

still, the idea is pretty troubling. the OT Law prohibits the eating of carrion, and other passages refer to the moral depravity of eating human flesh, specifically the flesh of one’s children, when faced with starvation.

i know that we do not need to follow the OT Law as Christians, but could we not derive prinicpals to be used today from those passages? specifically in this case?

Well, I think the principle at use here is the one of “double effect”. Yes, a person’s body is being desecrated, but that’s not the intent of the act. A greater good of preserving life comes from the act that outweighs the desecration. It’s like shooting an intruder in your home who’s threatening to kill your family. The intent of the action is NOT murder, although sadly, the intruder may lose his life. The intent of the act is to preserve the lives of your family through an unavoidable act. No sin is committed, although it certainly wouldn’t be acceptable in any other circumstance. It’s not like this is a routine occurrence. You could probably count on two hands the number of times this precise circumstance happened in the world in the last century.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well, I think the principle at use here is the one of “double effect”. Yes, a person’s body is being desecrated, but that’s not the intent of the act. A greater good of preserving life comes from the act that outweighs the desecration. It’s like shooting an intruder in your home who’s threatening to kill your family. The intent of the action is NOT murder, although sadly, the intruder may lose his life. The intent of the act is to preserve the lives of your family through an unavoidable act. No sin is committed, although it certainly wouldn’t be acceptable in any other circumstance. It’s not like this is a routine occurrence. You could probably count on two hands the number of times this precise circumstance happened in the world in the last century.

Yes, it’s just like when Jesus asked those who challenged him accusing him of breaking the Sabbath (many times) and in one case he actually gives them a senario to think about where their animal is stuck in a well on the sabbath. Would they not try to get it out?

How much more would one do to save a human life?

Jesus spoke about this matter more than once. As nice as it is that the church agrees with his view, it’s really strange that anyone would have to continue to challenge him over and over again.

 

[grace_singh]

Well, I think the principle at use here is the one of “double effect”. Yes, a person’s body is being desecrated, but that’s not the intent of the act. A greater good of preserving life comes from the act that outweighs the desecration. It’s like shooting an intruder in your home who’s threatening to kill your family. The intent of the action is NOT murder, although sadly, the intruder may lose his life. The intent of the act is to preserve the lives of your family through an unavoidable act. No sin is committed, although it certainly wouldn’t be acceptable in any other circumstance. It’s not like this is a routine occurrence. You could probably count on two hands the number of times this precise circumstance happened in the world in the last century.

this is a good point, but i’m not sure i theologically and morally buy the idea of allowing one act of evil for a greater good.

would it not be better to trust the Lord prayerfully to supply some other source of food, so that you didn’t have to sin? the Lord did say that it is better to cut off one’s hand and enter heaven handless, then to get thrown into hell whole. wouldn’t the same principal apply here?

many of the saints died rather than sin in some way, whether through idolatry, sexual impurity, or blasphemy. it may sound tough, but should we also not take the same route?

 

[StrawberryJam]

this is a good point, but i’m not sure i theologically and morally buy the idea of allowing one act of evil for a greater good.

would it not be better to trust the Lord prayerfully to supply some other source of food, so that you didn’t have to sin? the Lord did say that it is better to cut off one’s hand and enter heaven handless, then to get thrown into hell whole. wouldn’t the same principal apply here?

many of the saints died rather than sin in some way, whether through idolatry, sexual impurity, or blasphemy. it may sound tough, but should we also not take the same route?

I guess you don’t read the words of Jesus to come up with this senario as a sin. Jesus was accused of breaking the Holy Sabbath more than once. And his stand was that human life took a front seat to the (incorrect) interpretations of what breaks the Sabbath.

You need to tell me how a case like this is a sin.

You also do know of many people avoiding medicine available to them and opting for prayer only, and refusing medicine or medical treatment that resulted in death. Of course, it is typically minors that end up dead over their parents beliefs…

 

[centurionguard]

I totally agree here. Just because we’re starving, doesn’t mean despair and resorting to eat another human is acceptable. There has to be some other thing to eat like a plant or animal or something in these extreme situations.

How many people are actually presented with this extreme situation? xD

There has to be some other thing to eat like a plant or animal or something in these extreme situations.

How many people in this world are fully trained in extreme survival conditions? Extremely few. Given the overwhelming instinctive power of human survival in extreme conditions I see no code of morality broken intentionally. Having to eat a dead corpse for anyone to survive would be a extreme last resolve out of the norm. And really how many are rarely faced in this position? Extremely few.

 

[grace_singh]

I guess you don’t read the words of Jesus to come up with this senario as a sin. Jesus was accused of breaking the Holy Sabbath more than once. And his stand was that human life took a front seat to the (incorrect) interpretations of what breaks the Sabbath.

You need to tell me how a case like this is a sin.

You also do know of many people avoiding medicine available to them and opting for prayer only, and refusing medicine or medical treatment that resulted in death. Of course, it is typically minors that end up dead over their parents beliefs…

but recieving medicine from a physician and eating human flesh are two very different scenarios. i don’t know of any case where eating human flesh is looked upon as a medical cure for anything (except extreme hunger, which could easily be helped by anything else edible).

yes, human life takes a front seat. at the same time it is your own life you are helping and saving, not the life of another. likewise Christ healed others, and did not act selfishly in breaking Mosaic Law as understood by the Pharisees when healing on the sabbath.

Christ’s words about sin in Matthew 5:29-30 refer to personal sin, and this eating of human flesh to save one’s own life (doing a technical wrong to bring about a later “good”) would be a personal wrong, done in desperation to save one’s life.

if the CCC is against canibalism in general scenarios, and deems it sinful, i don’t see why it wouldn’t still be sinful in extreme situations. by that logic, the saints’ sinning to save their own lives when faced with torture and death would be would be morally licit?

 

[StrawberryJam]

but recieving medicine from a physician and eating human flesh are two very different scenarios. i don’t know of any case where eating human flesh is looked upon as a medical cure for anything (except extreme hunger, which could easily be helped by anything else edible).

yes, human life takes a front seat. at the same time it is your own life you are helping and saving, not the life of another. likewise Christ healed others, and did not act selfishly in breaking Mosaic Law as understood by the Pharisees when healing on the sabbath.

Christ’s words about sin in Matthew 5:29-30 refer to personal sin, and this eating of human flesh to save one’s own life (doing a technical wrong to bring about a later “good”) would be a personal wrong, done in desperation to save one’s life.

if the CCC is against canibalism in general scenarios, and deems it sinful, i don’t see why it wouldn’t still be sinful in extreme situations. by that logic, the saints’ sinning to save their own lives when faced with torture and death would be would be morally licit?

We are talking about a dead person. No life there at all. Please review your comments and correct all the parts where you change the dead person into a live person and then, let’s see what is left.

 

[Rolltide]

I totally agree here. Just because we’re starving, doesn’t mean despair and resorting to eat another human is acceptable. There has to be some other thing to eat like a plant or animal or something in these extreme situations.

How many people are actually presented with this extreme situation? xD

Well, let’s look at the detail of the famous Andes crash chronicled in the movie “Alive”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571

In 1972, Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crashed in the Andes Mountains carrying 45 rugby team members and associates. One-fourth of the passengers died in the crash, several others died of cold and injury. Of the twenty-nine that survived the first few days, another eight were killed by an avalanche. At temperatures that exceeded -30 F, the remaining passengers survived SEVENTY-TWO DAYS at a height of over 12,000 feet. This is FAR above the altitude where plant and animal life can be found. Other than a little food found in the wreckage of the plane, there were absolutely NO other resources. The passengers had to resort to cannibalism to survive. EVERY one of the survivors was Catholic.

Now, precisely where were these people going to find another source of food?

There’s also this:

Miracle in the Andes (2006)

Thirty-four years after the rescue, Nando Parrado published the book Miracle in the Andes: 72 Days on the Mountain and My Long Trek Home (with Vince Rause), which has received positive reviews. In this text, Parrado also touches upon public reaction to this event:
“ In fact, our survival had become a matter of national pride. Our ordeal was being celebrated as a glorious adventure… I didn’t know how to explain to them that there was no glory in those mountains. It was all ugliness and fear and desperation, and the obscenity of watching so many innocent people die. I was also shaken by the sensationalism with which many in the press covered the matter of what we had eaten to survive. Shortly after our rescue, officials of the Catholic Church announced that according to church doctrine we had committed no sin by eating the flesh of the dead. As Roberto had argued on the mountain, they told the world that the sin would have been to allow ourselves to die. More satisfying for me was the fact that many of the parents of the boys who died had publicly expressed their support for us, telling the world they understood and accepted what we had done to survive … despite these gestures, many news reports focused on the matter of our diet, in reckless and exploitive ways. Some newspapers ran lurid headlines above grisly front-page photos. (247–8)

 

[Rolltide]

Here’s a section from the Catechism on the principle of double effect:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Now, this is not an exact parallel, but it’s pretty close.

 

[Rolltide]

“A person may will to dispose of his body and to destine it to ends that are useful, morally irreproachable and even noble, among them the desire to aid the sick and suffering. One may make a decision of this nature with respect to his own body with full realization of the reverence which is due it… This decision should not be condemned but positively justified” (Allocution to a Group of Eye Specialists, May 14, 1956). - Pope Pius XII