Pro ALL life -

[4elise]

I would like to have a serious discussion on Catholic Social Teaching and food choices.

In addition to the nutritional benefits, vegans may choose an animal-free diet for ethical, environmental AND spiritual reasons. (And make this choice even though their friends, some family, and society may think that they are nuts!)

As I learned about the issues related to factory farming, dairy and leather production I became convinced that a vegan diet and therefore my daily choices are consistent with my Catholic faith and our beautiful Catholic Social Teaching. Over the last few years I have moved to a vegan diet and now at 53 find it easy, delicious, and actually fun to be creative!

Discussions that I have had (and read on some forums) about this choice with other Catholics sometimes surprise me. I do not offer this information to be ‘holier than thou’ another thing vegans are often accused of, but to share where this fits into my understanding of Catholic Social Teaching.

Vegans have been accused about ‘caring more about animals than people – and that simply isn’t true. I believe our hearts are wide enough and that there is room to care not only about my own family, my community, people around the world and all of God’s creation. I am pro all life!

I’ve heard from Catholics who say that they obtain their sources of animal protein & dairy from sustainable resources, not factory farming. I congratulate them on their efforts. I believe that Catholic Social Teaching even calls us to consider the amount of resources used to raise one pound of animal protein v/s vegetable protein in a world where so many go hungry, and while sustainable may be a better life for the animals than factory farming, regardless of the way in which the animal is raised they still use a greater amount of resources.

I’d love to have a “not derailed” discussion with this community.

• Discussions get de-railed as people say ‘you should care more about abortion.’ Simply - it is possible to care about BOTH and make all my choices reflect my beliefs. These issues are not mutually exclusive.
• Discussions get de-railed about the nature of an animal’s soul – I understand the Church’s teaching about an animal’s non-immortal soul.
• Discussions sometimes even get de-railed with a silly challenge saying ‘what about a vegetable’s life or pain’ – … really?
• I had one person actually say if everyone became vegan than cows would become extinct! Are there really people who think that would happen? Or are concerned about this and yet eat beef?
• Discussions often get de-railed as people pick apart a choice of words ‘inhumane treatment of animals’ responded to with – “well animals are not human” – everyone understands what someone means when they say this and only use this as another way to get off track –
• Discussions get de-railed about the human body, teeth, etc. being made by God to eat animals. Do we really need to discuss this? There are many things about the human body made by God that we have chosen to use in different ways – do we only walk because we have two legs and feet? Or do we ride bikes, drive cars, ride in busses and trains?
• Some de-rail discussions by vilifying ‘animal rights’ groups – for example, if you agree with the position on food choice of PETA then you must also agree with all things which have come to be associated with them - and the steps they take to communicate their beliefs – just not true.
• One big issue that seems to be a division when people try to discuss this - is people feeling judged – and sometimes I just get tired of trying to explain the ‘why’ of my vegan choice so it would be great if we could ALL avoid judging each other –
• And for clarification – I am writing this as an American. For my work I have occasion to travel to mission countries in Africa and Latin America – when I am a guest there and someone offers me food that has been prepared for me, regardless if it is fish, or chicken or goat - I graciously accept
• I am speaking of this as an American Catholic who does not raise my own animals for food, nor do I hunt, I shop at grocery stores, have a small vegetable garden and prepare the majority of the food for my family.

 

[4elise]

So, I offer the following hoping to open a REAL discussion on how our food choices fit with Catholic Social Teaching.

There are seven broad themes of Catholic Social Teaching. For each I believe my vegan choice is an appropriate response – and here is why…

**1. Life and Dignity of the Human Person
The measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person. **] Choosing a vegan diet is healthier than an ominvore diet – therefore a vegan diet enhances the life of each person and family. medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11310.php

**2. Call to Family, Community, and Participation
We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. **
A vegan diet, with vegetable protein, cost less to produce and even feed a family - therefore a larger number of people can be feed with the same resources – as Catholics we believe our individual choice matters as we are part of society responsible for the well-being of all - articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveMoney/GoVegetarianToSaveMoney.aspx?page=2

**3. Rights and Responsibilities
The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. **
Workers in factory farming and those who live in these communities where these enterprises exist have increased health risks – choosing a vegan diet helps create a healthier communities for all. factoryfarm.org/?page_id=24

**4. Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first. **
More people can be fed with the same resources making it possible for more of the poor and vulnerable to have their most basic need for food met. It takes 16 pounds of grain and soy to produce one pound of beef. It takes 12 calories of grain to produce one calorie of chicken. We eliminate the ‘middle’ cow/chicken – take the soy and grain directly to the people! An interesting article: guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/24/christmas.famine

**5. The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected–the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative. **
Workers in factory farming, those who are responsible for the slaughter of animals for consumption are often underpaid, are exposed to health hazards, and many take these jobs because they lack other opportunities
fosterfacts.net/wst_page6.html / papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1016401

6. Solidarity
We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that “if you want peace, work for justice.”1 The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict. The sixteen lbs it takes to produce one pound of meat could be better used in our ‘shrinking world – we chose a vegan diet to help ensure our brothers and sisters can also eat. - goveg.com/worldHunger-robbingPoor.asp

**7. Care for God’s Creation
We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God’s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored. ** Stewardship is our understanding of our role with the gift of creation. As stewards we must ensure that animals are treated as living beings – (easy for most to agree with when talking about puppies and kittens but less so for chickens, pigs, cows…. ) and that our limited resources are protected for all.

Researchers at the University of Chicago found that the typical American diet (of which nearly 30 percent comes from animal sources) generates the equivalent of nearly 3,300 pounds more carbon dioxide per person per year than a vegan diet with the same number of calories

Trees are cut down to create pastureland, vast quantities of water are used, and feedlot and dairy-farm runoff are a major source of water pollution.

A California study found that a single dairy cow “emits 19.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per year, making dairies the largest source of the smog-making gas, surpassing trucks and passenger cars.”(23)

There are so many more environmental issues related to the raising of animals for food for this world that can be fed on vegetable based diet -

farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/

 

[Jermosh]

Both plants and animals are Life. Why pick one life over another? Do you think that wheat is cared for ethically?

 

[4elise]

Is this a real question - or being asked with a wink as a ‘gotch ya’?

I guess I should assume that it is a real question - - I make a distinction between animals and plants on biological - action - behavior - etc…

Doing a quick Google search I found a PowerPoint that goes through the differences based on biology in detail: io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/Chap3298/sld001.htm

And a more basic reply to that question youth.cedare.int/Main.aspx?code=1007

If on the other hand if you are asking with a wink - I am really hoping for a real discussion on how other see food choice in relation to Catholic Social teaching - what are your challenges? Does this just not resonate for you at all?

Perhaps you make an effort to buy fair trade shade grown coffee because of Catholic Social Teaching

 

[kesa82]

I have worked in agriculture. I don’t have a college degree in it, but I have been in the fields myself.
The production of grains and vegetables is also factory farming. As for the soil itself , somebody said " all of civilization is built apon a two inch layer of top soil and the fact that it rains. "
As to that two inch layer of top soil, in my general experience the raising of crops, as generally practiced now, is more destructive of the soil than the raising of livestock.
In Chatham county North Carolina where I lived for many years, in the period 1820 - 1880 Chatham county was the states largest producer of vegatables and grains – with the result that it became, what it is now, a poultry producing region . It has been 100 years and in much of the county the soil is still terrible. Indeed, what soil? Two inches of clay, then hardpan.

I cannot deny that you have many good points. But, so the raising of meat and dairy is expensive and destructive of the enviroment, so it has become ubiquitous…why?
A rich persons, or a government, plot?
It’s all the product of greed or laziness or lack of imagination?
All these studies seem detailed and impressive, but I’m not so sure they have covered all the bases or even get at root causes.

Generally, I say that if you find that a thing works in your own household , Good !
Do that in your household.
Trust in its basic truth and good, trust in the good faith and good sense of your fellow man and let him find his own conclusions and manage his own household.
Government…has turned into a nightmare.
Whether it is Washington, or Moscow, there are few there except con men and courtiers and mercinaries.
AND IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO.
We have many problems, with many causes, but I think one of the fundemental causes is the mythology of the secular state, and the fundemental structural absurdities and paradoxes inherent in central planning and control.
Washington, as a heartless abstraction, a stranger, is trying to manage the internal affairs of a million households, and a million households are not managing, or not allowed to manage, themselves.
So, naturally, things aren’t just bad, ( the usual state of affairs in any period of history you care to look at ) they are nightmarish.
Another program, another law, will change nothing except perhaps to make things worse.
To understand the fundemental nature of the state I think it is pertinent to look back into the mists of time at the origin of the state. It began as a gang of mercinaries.
Keep to your church, tend to your own garden, and leave that gang of mercinaries to the Devil.

 

[Sair]

Although I can no longer write from a Catholic perspective, I can certainly understand how it is very possible to fit a vegan philosophy into Catholic social justice teaching.

I know there are people who come at it from both sides - those who take ‘stewardship’ over the natural world to mean we can do whatever we like to other animals and to wilderness areas, so long as it benefits some humans in some way; and those who feel that we must actually take care of the natural world and all its creatures, including ourselves. The latter makes far more sense to me than the former, I have to say - since the former can only mean ultimate destruction once we’ve used up the earth’s resources and there is nothing left for us to exploit.

I have a great deal of respect for those who commit to more sustainable lifestyles, because I do believe it is important to respect all life, especially sentient life. Every animal, including humans, is a centre of experience, and has intrisic value because of that. Sustainable living requires that we take into account the needs of all animals, and take care of the natural systems that support sentient life. There are also many people - myself included - who feel that it is beneath the dignity of humans, as moral agents, to inflict unneccessary suffering upon other creatures. We all inhabit the same Earth, and we’re all ultimately connected.

 

[kesa82]

Our food choices and Catholic social teaching.

Hmm, ok. Has the menu in these thousands of Catholic schools these past hundred, or these past thousand, years been a vegan menu?
No.

I’m satisfied.
Or, at least, I am not inclined to adopt just yet the conclusion that my predecessors were ignorant, uninformed, backward, provincial, or acting in bad faith.

 

[Sair]

Our food choices and Catholic social teaching.

Hmm, ok. Has the menu in these thousands of Catholic schools these past hundred, or these past thousand, years been a vegan menu?
No.

I’m satisfied.
Or, at least, I am not inclined to adopt just yet the conclusion that my predecessors were ignorant, uninformed, backward, provincial, or acting in bad faith.

Why not, for the latter? I dare say it hasn’t just been Catholic schools. Ignorance takes on many forms, and the most common is acting according to current social and economic trends just because that’s the way it is. Humans are creatures of habit, not inclined to question their daily routines unless confronted with inconvenient truths. Let’s face it - to transform the Western world into a bastion of sustainable living will require us to dismantle decades, possibly even centuries, of economic and social structuring. That’s part of the reason many people are so reluctant to implement change.

 

[Eucharisted]

Taken from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

1. The biblical message and the Church’s Magisterium represent the essential reference points for evaluating the problems found in the relationship between man and the environment.[969] The underlying cause of these problems can be seen in man’s pretension of exercising unconditional dominion over things, heedless of any moral considerations which, on the contrary, must distinguish all human activity.

The tendency towards an “ill-considered” [970] exploitation of the resources of creation is the result of a long historical and cultural process. “The modern era has witnessed man’s growing capacity for transformative intervention. The aspect of the conquest and exploitation of resources has become predominant and invasive, and today it has even reached the point of threatening the environment’s hospitable aspect: the environment as ‘resource’ risks threatening the environment as ‘home’. Because of the powerful means of transformation offered by technological civilization, it sometimes seems that the balance between man and the environment has reached a critical point”.[971]

1. Nature appears as an instrument in the hands of man, a reality that he must constantly manipulate, especially by means of technology. A reductionistic conception quickly spread, starting from the presupposition — which was seen to be erroneous — that an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed. This reductionistic conception views the natural world in mechanistic terms and sees development in terms of consumerism. Primacy is given to doing and having rather than to being, and this causes serious forms of human alienation.[972]

Such attitudes do not arise from scientific and technological research but from scientism and technocratic ideologies that tend to condition such research. The advances of science and technology do not eliminate the need for transcendence and are not of themselves the cause of the exasperated secularization that leads to nihilism. With the progress of science and technology, questions as to their meaning increase and give rise to an ever greater need to respect the transcendent dimension of the human person and creation itself.

1. A correct understanding of the environment prevents the utilitarian reduction of nature to a mere object to be manipulated and exploited. At the same time, it must not absolutize nature and place it above the dignity of the human person himself. In this latter case, one can go so far as to divinize nature or the earth, as can readily be seen in certain ecological movements that seek to gain an internationally guaranteed institutional status for their beliefs.[973]

The Magisterium finds the motivation for its opposition to a concept of the environment based on ecocentrism and on biocentrism in the fact that “it is being proposed that the ontological and axiological difference between men and other living beings be eliminated, since the biosphere is considered a biotic unity of undifferentiated value. Thus man’s superior responsibility can be eliminated in favour of an egalitarian consideration of the ‘dignity’ of all living beings”.[974]

1. A vision of man and things that is sundered from any reference to the transcendent has led to the rejection of the concept of creation and to the attribution of a completely independent existence to man and nature. The bonds that unite the world to God have thus been broken. This rupture has also resulted in separating man from the world and, more radically, has impoverished man’s very identity. Human beings find themselves thinking that they are foreign to the environmental context in which they live. The consequences resulting from this are all too clear: “it is the relationship man has with God that determines his relationship with his fellow men and with his environment. This is why Christian culture has always recognized the creatures that surround man as also gifts of God to be nurtured and safeguarded with a sense of gratitude to the Creator. Benedictine and Franciscan spirituality in particular has witnessed to this sort of kinship of man with his creaturely environment, fostering in him an attitude of respect for every reality of the surrounding world”.[975] There is a need to place ever greater emphasis on the intimate connection between environmental ecology and “human ecology”.[976]
2. The Magisterium underscores human responsibility for the preservation of a sound and healthy environment for all.[977] “If humanity today succeeds in combining the new scientific capacities with a strong ethical dimension, it will certainly be able to promote the environment as a home and a resource for man and for all men, and will be able to eliminate the causes of pollution and to guarantee adequate conditions of hygiene and health for small groups as well as for vast human settlements. Technology that pollutes can also cleanse, production that amasses can also distribute justly, on condition that the ethic of respect for life and human dignity, for the rights of today’s generations and those to come, prevails”.[978]

 

[Jermosh]

Is this a real question - or being asked with a wink as a ‘gotch ya’?

I guess I should assume that it is a real question - - I make a distinction between animals and plants on biological - action - behavior - etc…

Doing a quick Google search I found a PowerPoint that goes through the differences based on biology in detail: io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/Chap3298/sld001.htm

And a more basic reply to that question youth.cedare.int/Main.aspx?code=1007

If on the other hand if you are asking with a wink - I am really hoping for a real discussion on how other see food choice in relation to Catholic Social teaching - what are your challenges? Does this just not resonate for you at all?

Perhaps you make an effort to buy fair trade shade grown coffee because of Catholic Social Teaching

The question is real. Both plants and animals have a soul, both can feel pain, communicate with other plants and species, and both thrive to live. Take some attributes from a tabbaco plant findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n25-26_v152/ai_20121850/.

I think we all should attempt to consume food and goods that create a positive sharing of wealth and are good for the enviroment. So I think that if one can afford to buy fair trade goods, then they should, I do not think its a mortal sin to not buy it though unless you know that the product is from ill will.

 

[Sair]

The question is real. Both plants and animals have a soul, both can feel pain, communicate with other plants and species, and both thrive to live. Take some attributes from a tabbaco plant findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n25-26_v152/ai_20121850/.

I think we all should attempt to consume food and goods that create a positive sharing of wealth and are good for the enviroment. So I think that if one can afford to buy fair trade goods, then they should, I do not think its a mortal sin to not buy it though unless you know that the product is from ill will.

What the referenced article demonstrates is not so much plants’ ability to suffer or the presence of a soul (although my personal jury is still out on that one - how else to explain life force?) but the fact that the natural world consists of complex interrelationships between species, probably many of which we have yet to discover. Put simply, we can’t afford to underestimate the importance of any species in the global ecosystem.

 

[kesa82]

Why not, for the latter? I dare say it hasn’t just been Catholic schools. Ignorance takes on many forms, and the most common is acting according to current social and economic trends just because that’s the way it is. Humans are creatures of habit, not inclined to question their daily routines unless confronted with inconvenient truths. Let’s face it - to transform the Western world into a bastion of sustainable living will require us to dismantle decades, possibly even centuries, of economic and social structuring. That’s part of the reason many people are so reluctant to implement change.

One must assume their actions were based on ignorance. I assume no such thing.
My reading of history is that typically the young think they know better, and think their predecessors are unthinking dinosaurs.
But, more often than not, they discover in the fullness of time that they knew not so well, and grandfather was not so stupid.

Specifically, the 20th century as a whole could serve as an object leason in this.
and Russia could serve as a type for the whole. It had 70 years of “progress” ( Bolshevism ) for the net result that, as of 1990, crop yields had not exceeded those of 1914 , when the “incompetent” Tsar was in charge.

 

[Sair]

One must assume their actions were based on ignorance. I assume no such thing.
My reading of history is that typically the young think they know better, and think their predecessors are unthinking dinosaurs.
But, more often than not, they discover in the fullness of time that they knew not so well, and grandfather was not so stupid.

Specifically, the 20th century as a whole could serve as an object leason in this.
and Russia could serve as a type for the whole. It had 70 years of “progress” ( Bolshevism ) for the net result that, as of 1990, crop yields had not exceeded those of 1914 , when the “incompetent” Tsar was in charge.

Or to put it another way, we could say that the largely agrarian societies that existed prior to the industrial revolution and the dawn of mass production might actually have been onto something…

 

[4elise]

Taken from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

1. The biblical message and the Church’s Magisterium represent the essential reference points for evaluating the problems found in the relationship between man and the environment.[969] The underlying cause of these problems can be seen in man’s pretension of exercising unconditional dominion over things, heedless of any moral considerations which, on the contrary, must distinguish all human activity.

Thank you Nick for listing this from the Compendium - what do you conclude from this as it relates to your daily choices, i.e. meat vs vegetarian / fair-trade purchases etc?

 

[4elise]

I have worked in agriculture. I don’t have a college degree in it, but I have been in the fields myself.
The production of grains and vegetables is also factory farming. As for the soil itself , somebody said " all of civilization is built apon a two inch layer of top soil and the fact that it rains. "
As to that two inch layer of top soil, in my general experience the raising of crops, as generally practiced now, is more destructive of the soil than the raising of livestock.

Hi Kesa - it is certainly true that large scale agriculture takes less of our responsibility / stewardship of nature into account than small family farms - so what I try to do is buy from farmers markets and my little garden… I wasn’t proposing any government intervention on this issue - just discussing this in the context of faith.

 

[Catholicc]

… I am pro all life! …

I hope you are not drawing some sort of moral equivalency between human life and animals. Being Pro-Life - i.e. trying to stop the slaughter of innocent chidren by the holocaust of abortion - is in no way on a par with being nice to animals.

 

[4elise]

I hope you are not drawing some sort of moral equivalency between human life and animals. Being Pro-Life - i.e. trying to stop the slaughter of innocent chidren by the holocaust of abortion - is in no way on a par with being nice to animals.

Oh my Catholicc;5028451 … this is exactly the discussion I hoped I was steering away from with the lengthy explanation at the beginning of my post - so for clarification -

1. I understand that we humans have been made in the image and likeness of God
2. I am morally outraged by abortion and agree that we should work to end this inexcusably horrendous taking of innocent life.
3. I understand the Church’s teachings regarding the non immortal nature of the soul of an animal
4. And the lengthy points I was trying to discuss went far beyond ‘being nice to animals’

Does our Catholic faith and Catholic Social Teaching call us to do more than be outraged by and work to end abortion? For me, with what I have learned about the production of my food it does… and I wonder if anyone else is feeling this challenge something worthy of trying to take on - or do we just shrug and say;

1. it is too hard
2. one person can’t make any real difference

 

[Sair]

I hope you are not drawing some sort of moral equivalency between human life and animals. Being Pro-Life - i.e. trying to stop the slaughter of innocent chidren by the holocaust of abortion - is in no way on a par with being nice to animals.

You are effectively attempting to derail the argument of the OP by raising the issue of abortion - it is actually quite irrelevant to the issue of ethical food-production practices.

If you are talking about moral equivalency, you need to look at basic rights, which stem from the basic similarities between humans and other animals. Animals such as pigs, cows and chickens are sentient - in other words, they can feel pain and pleasure and they are what may be called centres of experience - just like people. Therefore, as far as their basic rights to be spared unnecessary suffering are concerned, they are entitled to equal moral consideration with humans. And - if we are to be consistent - when it comes right down to it, they have more of a claim to have their basic rights considered than do pre-sentient human foetuses, but since that is not the argument in question, it can be left for another thread. There are a few threads currently running on the subject of abortion.

As to being pro-life, why not be pro-ALL-life? Where is the problem with this, apart from the relative inconvenience to some humans caused by considering the basic needs of other animals?

 

[Catholicc]

You are effectively attempting to derail the argument of the OP by raising the issue of abortion…

Don’t tell me what I’m trying to do. I’m not trying to derail anything. I was just trying to get some clarification on the remark “I am pro all life”.

 

[4elise]

As to being pro-life, why not be pro-ALL-life?

Hi Sair,

I certainly have come to this conclusion and understand from your other posts that you are very much pro animal rights. Others posting in response to yours have taken exception to your posts on this topic because of an equality you seem to communicate between man and animals, which is not consistent with Catholic teaching.

I also appreciate that sometimes in discussions about things that we feel so strongly about it can be easy to try to ‘take on’ all who take a position that we disagree with - I am however hoping that this discussion will be within the context of Catholic Social Teaching as well, and I believe you have posted that you are not writing from a Catholic perspective - perhaps you might comment on how your own faith influences your position on this issue?