Killing Animals for "Sport"

[4elise]

It is significant that only the number of fish is symbolic, not the eating of fish. You need to use honesty in your arguments, and not be so selective. One could also argue that vegetarianism/veganism is a mark of heresy, by using similar tactics. Notice I have not done so, because it would be intellectually dishonest. I ask you stay away from the same twisting of the Scriptures.

you had previously posted:

CWBetts;There is nothing in the context to indicate symbolism. You can’t just twist the Scriptures to make them say what you want. If you are going to do that, than you may as well be a Protestant.

In response to:

severus68
I believe the number of fish and the casting was symbolic. It was about bringing all to Christ.

I added the scripture notes from the USCCB in response to your comment -
Calling people dishonest does not advance a civil discussion and is inflametory

If one were to use this scripture to ‘support’ eating fish - I would think you might agree that this is also the incorrect use of scripture -

Since the only quote that we have on this forum from Dr. Jones is the one we have been discussing I do not see any ‘twisting’ (your word) of scripture - and find that those who use scripture to ‘support’ their diet are the ones ‘twisting’ scripture.

 

[Brendan]

Just a comment about the other post by someone that animals were put here for us to be our resources. Animals have souls as stated in the Bible and by Pope John Paul II…

… And Aquinas.

Of course they do. all living material creatures have souls. The soul is what animates the matter, that distingishes living matter from dead matter.

Grass has a soul, amoebas souls, rabbits have souls, heck even chicken pox has a soul.

The difference is that only humans have a spiritual, eternal soul. The soul of grass and of rabbits simply ceases to exist when their life is over.

So saying that animals have souls really adds nothing to the conversation. And if you are implying that we cannot eat something that has a soul, they you have ruled out eating carrots and peas too. Was that really your intent?

I can concern myself with the destruction on one soul when I kill a deer, or the millions of yeast souls killed when my wife pops a loaf of sourdough into the oven. Either way I am not concerned, as long as the death is without suffering. Yeast deaths are easy in that way, they don’t have a nervous system. Deer deaths require a bit more care and practice to be done without suffering, but that is what I have been rather sucessful at.

Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin."

Could you explain how me eating venison causes you to sin? Because that is what Paul is say here, that there must be causality involved.

Psalm 150:6 says: “Let everything that has breath give praie to the Lord! Hallelujah!”\

Yep, and Daniel 3 says

Cold and chill, bless the Lord
Dew and rain, bless the Lord
Frost and chill, bless the Lord
Ice and Snow, bless the Lord

That doesn’t mean that I can’t drink dew and rain or eat ice and snow either

 

[Godscre]

Oh yea, and the raccoon meat became cat food. Since it’s getting cold and the mice aren’t as plentiful since the chicken feed isn’t out as much, we have taken to suplimenting the cat with actual real cat food.

Of course, the raccoons were getting into THAT too, so it just seemed like poetic justice. The raccoon ate the cat food, so they BECAME cat food

The cat seemed to appreciate it as well. She much prefers actual meat instead of the dry stuff she’s been getting lately.

I’ll stick with God and not Catholic Answers Forum.

 

[4elise]

Note her use of phrase here "would mitigate the culpability ". Culpabililty refers to the level in which a malum ( something that is evil) is sinful ( the willful commision of a malum).

The malum becomes a culpa (something sinful as in "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)

A person can commit a malum without it being sinful, such as if they have no knowledge or did not commit the act willing. A person can commit a malum with a large measure of gravity but have the sin remain venial if their culpability is reduced.

So Dr. Jones seems to consider the killing of animals for food to be a malum, and the need for protein reduces the culbablity. In other words, she defaults to killing for food as being a culpa already, where the level of culpa can be reduced if self defense is involved.

Yes, the Church looks at the Bible on several levels, all of which carry Truth. The number if the fish is certainly symbolic, 153 fish is commonly thought to refer to the number of known nations or peoples at the time. And Peter will bring them all to Christ without tear ( in Greek Schiso, or Schism

But the literal also remains, and it has to, otherwise we would have to infer that Christ will eat some of us for breakfast

The Apostles DID return to fishing after the initially left their nets to follow Christ, and after spending years learning from Him. Christ DID cook fish and offer it to the Apostles for breakfast.

That is the great thing about the Bible, there are lessons on many, many levels. We find Truth in both the Symbolic and the Literal and it must be read on both levels.

One of the techniques we learned (along with the seminarians) was called Lectio Divina. It is a form of Scriptural prayer where one examines a passage of Scripture and first looks for the literal meanings, next the historical meanings, thirdly the moral meanings and finally the symbolic meanings. And one can find lessons in all four.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending an author I am unfamiliar with - and I do not know her reason for the use of the word culpable - but again see that given the CCC’s notes - if another source of protein is available one would be ‘guilty’ of unnecessary suffering / death of an animal - (I am sure you would agree given the text of the CCC) - in choosing meat - and this may be what she is referencing.

Of course our Bible is meant to be taken on many levels - but certainly in seeking the Truth we do also need to remain open - I am very familiar with Lectio Divina and believe that if it were unacceptable for us as mere lay people to examine passages of Holy Scripture we would be dissuaded from participating in this means of praying with the Word of God.

Blessings

 

[Brendan]

I’ll stick with God and not Catholic Answers Forum.

So God doesn’t want cats to eat meat?? Is that what you are saying???

 

[Godscre]

… And Aquinas.

Of course they do. all living material creatures have souls. The soul is what animates the matter, that distingishes living matter from dead matter.

****Grass has a soul/****B], amoebas souls, rabbits have souls, heck even chicken pox has a soul.

The difference is that only humans have a spiritual, eternal soul. The soul of grass and of rabbits simply ceases to exist when their life is over.

So saying that animals have souls really adds nothing to the conversation. And if you are implying that we cannot eat something that has a soul, they you have ruled out eating carrots and peas too. Was that really your intent?

I can concern myself with the destruction on one soul when I kill a deer, or the millions of yeast souls killed when my wife pops a loaf of sourdough into the oven. Either way I am not concerned, as long as the death is without suffering. Yeast deaths are easy in that way, they don’t have a nervous system. Deer deaths require a bit more care and practice to be done without suffering, but that is what I have been rather sucessful at.

WHAT???
Goodbye and best wishes.

 

[Brendan]

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending an author I am unfamiliar with - and I do not know her reason for the use of the word culpable -

If she is attempting to speak as a theologian, then the word has theologic meaning, a meaning that she should be aware of. If she is not attempting to speak on a theological matter, then we can freely ignore her work as being irrevelant to the conversation at hand.

but again see that given the CCC’s notes - if another source of protein is available one would be ‘guilty’ of unnecessary suffering / death of an animal - (I am sure you would agree given the text of the CCC) - in choosing meat - and this may be what she is referencing.

Correct. In which case we must examine what the Church means by ''needlessly". I can safefly infer that directly, it means without need. But that is a subjective term. How do we clarify.

We can look at examples in Scripture.

Exodus offers us God giving the Israelites both manna and quail to eat. Could God have created manna to contain sufficent protein to satisfy the bodily needs of the Israelites. Certainly. So there was no direct need for the quail to be eaten. But God provided the protein in the form of quail. So it clearly cannot refer to direct need.

In the case of the loaves and the fishes, Christ multiplied and served both. Again, could Christ have had the multiplied barley loaves contain sufficent protein for the Jews to return to their homes for a deep dish of lentils ( a good high protein legume Or even just multiplied the loaves as is, as people can certainly gain enough carbs from that to get home. So clearly the need was not absolute.

How about the two doves that Mary Sacrificed, she was sinless so it could not have been an sin offering, so these doves died to fulfil a legality. Did Mary sin in doing so (tread carefully here)?

And we have also covered John 21 and the fish eaten then in great depth.

So based on that, we can clearly see the level of need that Christ and Mary had for causing the deaths of animals. And since the Church in the CCC cannot teach in contrast to the teachings of Christ, we can see that the level of need that the CCC referes to is 1. subjective, not absolute and 2.) that a very low level of need is required.

 

[Brendan]

WHAT???
Goodbye and best wishes.

No need to leave,. This is a rational discussion between rational people.
’
Do you disagree with my on the nature of souls? That part is definitive Church teaching, right at the core of what it means to have an Anima ( Latin for ‘soul’ and the very root of the word “animated” ) and what it means to be created in the “likeness and image of God”

Was it my description of hunting. If so I apologize if I was too graphic. My attempt was simply to show that when I hunt, I take great care to ensure that the animal dies quickly and painlessly.

What you bolded was grass having a soul. That is correct. It really is. A soul is what differentiates dead matter from animal matter. The first power of the soul, any soul, is LIFE. All living things have souls. That is Catholic teaching, and I won’t apologize for that. If you do not believe me in that, go ask your parish priest.

 

[vz71]

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending an author I am unfamiliar with - and I do not know her reason for the use of the word culpable - but again see that given the CCC’s notes - if another source of protein is available one would be ‘guilty’ of unnecessary suffering / death of an animal - (I am sure you would agree given the text of the CCC) - in choosing meat - and this may be what she is referencing.

I respectfully submit that if you are unfamiliar with the autthor, then you should not be defending them.

Making arguments in a territory you do not know is a setup for failure.

 

[4elise]

So God doesn’t want cats to eat meat?? Is that what you are saying???

:doh2:
I’m absolutely certain you know this is not what was meant - yet…

 

[4elise]

So based on that, we can clearly see the level of need that Christ and Mary had for causing the deaths of animals. And since the Church in the CCC cannot teach in contrast to the teachings of Christ, we can see that the level of need that the CCC referes to is 1. subjective, not absolute and 2.) that a very low level of need is required.

So, given this interpretation - we should eat what was eaten by Christ? Is it wrong then to NOT eat fish? Or to eat say corn?

I do not see scripture as spelling out a diet plan - but a way to live. Given the way food comes to us today for the most part, so different from the way it was in the time of Christ, I believe that it is 1) the ability to meet dietary needs without meat and 2) the ability to do so without causing suffering / or death of an animal - that point to this being a choice more reflective of the teaching found in the CCC.

Blessings,

 

[Brendan]

:doh2:
I’m absolutely certain you know this is not what was meant - yet…

Actually, I really am not. If he had quoted some of my theological points and then said he choices God over CAF, I might have understood a point.

But when he quotes a section of mine about feeding my cat raccoon meat and mentions choosing God over CAF, it does leave me honestly confused. There seemed no logical connect between the text quoted and “choosing God”

Could you explain please?

 

[4elise]

Correct. In which case we must examine what the Church means by ''needlessly". I can safefly infer that directly, it means without need. But that is a subjective term. How do we clarify.

You can safely infer that this is subjective - and then you have your answer.

I accept that since I do not need meat, dairy, eggs, poultry, fish - where the CCC says the needless suffering and death of an animal - I can accept this a supporting and reinforcing this choice

 

[4elise]

I respectfully submit that if you are unfamiliar with the autthor, then you should not be defending them.

Making arguments in a territory you do not know is a setup for failure.

I do not believe others who are discussing the quote presented - are any more familiar with this author, therefore I acknowledged that I can only discuss the quote on this thread.

I am always willing to acknowledge what I do not know, which is quite a lot!

 

[4elise]

Actually, I really am not. If he had quoted some of my theological points and then said he choices God over CAF, I might have understood a point.

But when he quotes a section of mine about feeding my cat raccoon meat and mentions choosing God over CAF, it does leave me honestly confused. There seemed no logical connect between the text quoted and “choosing God”

Could you explain please?

There I go, tripping over certitude! Sorry.
I’ll allow the one you questioned to answer - and pull myself out of the middle -

But if you want my interpretation I thought this referenced ‘God over CAF’ referenced something completely different than what you feed your cats.

 

[Brendan]

So, given this interpretation - we should eat what was eaten by Christ? Is it wrong then to NOT eat fish? Or to eat say corn?

No simply that that the eating of animal life is

1. Not intrinsically immoral
2. Can be done out of a broad version of 'Necessary"

I do not see scripture as spelling out a diet plan - but a way to live. Given the way food comes to us today for the most part, so different from the way it was in the time of Christ, I believe that it is 1) the ability to meet dietary needs without meat and 2) the ability to do so without causing suffering / or death of an animal - that point to this being a choice more reflective of the teaching found in the CCC.

Blessings,

I have certainly agreed with you about factory farming. That is one of the reasons I hunt and was looking at raising chickens. And in the prevention of animal suffering.

But causing the death of an animal is not against Church teaching, even for simple reasons, such as Mary’s sacrifice of doves at the Temple.

We agree more than we disagree and I very much enjoy this discource. Dr. Jones, and Godscre, on the other hand, take that to an extreme that is not supported by Catholic teaching.

As I mentioned in my previous post, we can see exactly under what circumstances God offers us meat to eat. Like any gift, we are under no obligation to accept it, but to place more qualifiers on it that gift than either the Church or God does, is not a wise practice.

 

[Brendan]

But if you want my interpretation I thought this referenced ‘God over CAF’ referenced something completely different than what you feed your cats.

I do understand that, and hence my first point.

What confused me was his placing that text in the context of me feeding my cat raccoon meat

As far as choosing God over CAF, I would consider that to be a false dicotomy. No one, least of all myself, have promoted CAF over God.

Rather it is simply a tool to engage in a rational discussion on theologic topics. Point and Counterpoint, I thought that was what we were doing.

 

[4elise]

No simply that that the eating of animal life is

1. Not intrinsically immoral
2. Can be done out of a broad version of 'Necessary"

I have certainly agreed with you about factory farming. That is one of the reasons I hunt and was looking at raising chickens. And in the prevention of animal suffering.

But causing the death of an animal is not against Church teaching, even for simple reasons, such as Mary’s sacrifice of doves at the Temple.

We agree more than we disagree and I very much enjoy this discource. Dr. Jones, and Godscre, on the other hand, take that to an extreme that is not supported by Catholic teaching.

As I mentioned in my previous post, we can see exactly under what circumstances God offers us meat to eat. Like any gift, we are under no obligation to accept it, but to place more qualifiers on it that gift than either the Church or God does, is not a wise practice.

I have also enjoyed our discussion - and do think that where you find some more ‘extreme’ positions it may be more a case of choice of words… while you find that too far in one direction - the posters who make comments about all the meat they are about to eat are equally disruptive to a constructive discussion

You say for example 'broad version of ‘necessity’ – yet the CCC does not add this as a qualifier - it just simply says ‘unnecessary suffering and / or death’ In my life - unnecessary = unneeded.

I also accept - since as I’ve said I have family members who do eat meat, who I love dearly, who I do not judge - that many good Catholics do not make this same choice as I - so I offer all this without any judgement on anyone who has taken a broader view of necessity.

Now on the issue of factory farming (she begins climbing up on her soap box) kpeople:- certainly this practice is very hard (if not impossible) to justify given the teaching of the Church - grabbing a burger or chicken McNuggets, or a milk shake at McDonalds one is participating in meat, poultry, dairy that comes from a factory farm… so IMHO the 27 million people every day who eat at McDonalds are contributing to the problem… ok, I’ll get down off my soap box for now!

Blessings,

 

[Brendan]

I have also enjoyed our discussion -

:heaven:

and do think that where you find some more ‘extreme’ positions it may be more a case of choice of words…

I remain unconvinced by that, Godscre, yes that could be so. But Dr. Jones, having a Doctorate, should know what the words she use mean in a theological context.

while you find that too far in one direction - the posters who make comments about all the meat they are about to eat are equally disruptive to a constructive discussion

That I will also agree with.

You say for example 'broad version of ‘necessity’ – yet the CCC does not add this as a qualifier - it just simply says ‘unnecessary suffering and / or death’ In my life - unnecessary = unneeded.

Remember, the Church never uses terms or meanings that conflict with it’s teachings. That was pretty much my point here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5892421&postcount=882.

As Catholics we cannot use personal interpretation in circumstances where it might not be warrented.

So when the Church uses terms like “unecessary”, what exactly does that mean in historical and scriptural terms.

Going back to my previous post, was it “unecessary” for the Israelites to eat the quail. What about it made in necessary, or were they giving offense to God by eating them.

Or Mary’s offering of two doves. Doing so was simply follow a Mosaic law on ritual purity. What was the level of “necessity” being demonstrated and how does that apply to our lives today?

Those are the questions that need to be asked, as the Catechism here discusses moral precepts, which are unchanging. If it would be wrong for us to eat quail now, it was wrong for the Israelites. Either that, or God erred in not desiging manna to fulfil the basic nutritional needs of His people.

If we assume that the CCC describes ‘necessity’ in absolute terms, as when there is simply no other choice, then one of the two propositions above would have to be true. And neither one fits with our understanding of either the Moral Law or the Nature of God.

Does that make sense?

I also accept - since as I’ve said I have family members who do eat meat, who I love dearly, who I do not judge - that many good Catholics do not make this same choice as I - so I offer all this without any judgement on anyone who has taken a broader view of necessity.

Now on the issue of factory farming (she begins climbing up on her soap box) kpeople:- certainly this practice is very hard (if not impossible) to justify given the teaching of the Church - grabbing a burger or chicken McNuggets, or a milk shake at McDonalds one is participating in meat, poultry, dairy that comes from a factory farm… so IMHO the 27 million people every day who eat at McDonalds are contributing to the problem… ok, I’ll get down off my soap box for now!

Blessings,

 

[CWBetts]

So you say I am wrong, I point out what the Church says the passage is about so now you come up with me pushing my choice as a doctrine. Come on, am I right about the passage? No one is forcing you or anyone else. We can’t even if we wanted to. Who said not eating meat is a doctrine? This thread is about killig fo sport.

Now I am a heretic? Earlier you said I am a Protestant following someone else on this thread. This heretic stance has beeen used on me on another thread. Please don’t read our posts if it upsets you so much. It upsets me when people use name calling rather than particiate in a respectful discussion.

You have insinuated that anyone who is not a vegan is committing sin. You “forbid eating foods” That is how one can identify a heretic, or at least one of the signs. You have invented this belief. Again, the commentaries only say that the number, and the reason for Jesus eating the fish is symbolic at that point. They do not state that the whole episode is a metaphor. Jesus ate meat. God actually commanded it in the Passover. So stop pushing your self-righteous, misbegotten agenda.