Should Catholics be concerned about animals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Part 2
  1. This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of its resources. Human beings legitimately exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies, so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world’s population. On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God’s gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”[120]. Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet[121]. One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of “efficiency” is not value-free.
  2. The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences[122]. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new life-styles “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments”[123]. Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment, just as environmental deterioration in turn upsets relations in society. Nature, especially in our time, is so integrated into the dynamics of society and culture that by now it hardly constitutes an independent variable. Desertification and the decline in productivity in some agricultural areas are also the result of impoverishment and underdevelopment among their inhabitants. When incentives are offered for their economic and cultural development, nature itself is protected. Moreover, how many natural resources are squandered by wars! Peace in and among peoples would also provide greater protection for nature. The hoarding of resources, especially water, can generate serious conflicts among the peoples involved. Peaceful agreement about the use of resources can protect nature and, at the same time, the well-being of the societies concerned.
The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction. There is need for what might be called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration of nature is in fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when “human ecology”[124] is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.

In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.
 
Bill_Cherry said:
Well thank you very much for your feedback

This is from
U.S. House of Representatives
June 29, 2006

TESTIMONY
by
Brother David Andrews, CSC
Executive Director
National Catholic Rural Life Conference

Is this not worthy enough of attention? Or perhaps there is something more important I could be doing. Like mowing the lawn, I suppose. It does need to be done.
Click to expand...
I would agree it certainly worthy of attention. Thanks for posting this.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I should add that I mean no disrespect for any posters on here, or their convictions. But the film really is a bad film.
Click to expand...
You are so polite. I really do like you! And of course I disagree with you about this being a “fringe” movement within the Church.

Here’s a thought. You, obviously are very connected to your business and the animal agriculture of your area, so you would have different sensitivities and different thresholds of tolerance than people not familiar with your life, or the raising of animals for food. What about all of the cityfolk who are so far removed from countrylife and animal agriculture? Upon learning of even some of the less heinous practices, they are likely to balk. Many of them want no part of it, and choose a diet that does not support animal agriculture. It is a healthy diet that meets all of their nutritional needs and then some. This is of course what IS happening, as we become a more advanced technologic society. Many people spend their work lives in front of a computer screen, or at a desk. It is these people, perhaps, clergy included, who are questioning whether we should continue to eat animal products. If there are alternatives to the animal foods, and this eases the conscience of people who do not feel good about animal agriculture, and this “movement” seems to be picking up steam–is that a good thing? A bad thing? A neutral thing?
 
Marfran said:
You are so polite. I really do like you! And of course I disagree with you about this being a “fringe” movement within the Church.

Here’s a thought. You, obviously are very connected to your business and the animal agriculture of your area, so you would have different sensitivities and different thresholds of tolerance than people not familiar with your life, or the raising of animals for food. What about all of the cityfolk who are so far removed from countrylife and animal agriculture? Upon learning of even some of the less heinous practices, they are likely to balk. Many of them want no part of it, and choose a diet that does not support animal agriculture. It is a healthy diet that meets all of their nutritional needs and then some. This is of course what IS happening, as we become a more advanced technologic society. Many people spend their work lives in front of a computer screen, or at a desk. It is these people, perhaps, clergy included, who are questioning whether we should continue to eat animal products. If there are alternatives to the animal foods, and this eases the conscience of people who do not feel good about animal agriculture, and this “movement” seems to be picking up steam–is that a good thing? A bad thing? A neutral thing?
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping:

Very well put, Marfran! I sometimes wish I was a little more eloquent…
 
Ridgerunner said:
I really do believe in treating animals humanely. I really do. But I think this film is essentially sentimentalism and, perhaps to some degree, representative of the beliefs of a fringe religious group…
Click to expand...
If this is representative of a “fringe” group, why do people get so huffy on the subject? If this is only representative of a small number of people, a small number of Christians, then why do we see all these people popping in to break up the discussions? And you know what I mean–all the meat threads end up getting shut down. If people that feel this way are just the “fringe,” why doesn’t everybody ignore them? If you ignore someone they will disappear faster than if you pay them a lot of attention.
 
Mickey_Finn said:
The foolishness that distracts you and apparently Bill Cherry from matters better suiting your position as Gods creatures. Some I mentioned above.

To have you come along and try to suborn our faith to serve your own misguided agenda is rather insulting to those who attempting to live in our faith. Many come here for guidance and support. You are providing neither. You should reflect on that.
ATB
Click to expand...
Mickey - I am one who has chosen a vegan diet because of my faith
Because of the impact of factory farming on communities, workers, environment, and excessive use of resources - it is my faith, my belief that I am part of a community loved by God, that I feel called to make this choice personally, and to share this information with others with whom I share this faith.
peace
 
As an alternative to factory farming, consider raising Kobe Beef.

Each animal is hand massaged and hand fed.

Cannot imagine more tender and respectful animal husbandry conditions.

luciesfarm.com/artman/publish/article_39.shtml

It takes a tender man to make tender beef … with apologies to Frank Purdue.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Well, I’ve read every post and there is one aspect not covered … not really.

WWJE

post-gazette.com/food/20031113jesusfood1113fnp2.asp
Click to expand...
The one important aspect missing here is the issue of factory farming, and the issues of mistreatment of animals & human workers, the misappropriation of resources, the global impact of our diets–as these are significant and prominent factors in the choice not to eat meat. The central theme of Eating Mercifully is that factory farming is not consistent with Christian values.

You **can **eat meat and not participate in factory farming. Many people do not want to make the distinction between the eating of meat and the eating of ***factory farmed ***meat.

One common retort from posters is well, Jesus ate meat…
If one is to use that as a defense to eat meat TODAY, then one should adhere to Christ’s example in totality. Jesus did not drink Coke. Jesus did not put butter on his bread–he used olive oil. Did not drink pasteurized cow’s milk. Did not eat Fritos. Did not eat hamburgers. Did not eat pork chops. Did not eat shrimp or lobster. And Jesus did not eat factory farmed anything. Factory farming poses MODERN ethical considerations that were not present in the times and life of Christ. This is the purpose of this thread–to examine these ethical issues inherent with the production of our food.
 
As responsible stewards of God’s creatures, we should learn about what we spend money on and about God’s word more. Didn’t Jesus’ disciples who were fishermen ultimately leave their fishing behind to follow Jesus? I believe so.
The hunters in the Bible (who are mentioned in the Old Testament) were not of God’s chosen (ie. Ishmael, Esau, Nimrod). We will be held accountable for every creature as Hebrews 4:13 says.

“Let everything that has breath give praise to the Lord! Hallelujah!” Ps. 150:6
In the love of the Lord.
Jan 🙂
 
mercifulJan said:
As responsible stewards of God’s creatures, we should learn about **what we spend money on **and about God’s word more. **Didn’t Jesus’ disciples who were fishermen ultimately leave their fishing behind to follow Jesus? I believe so.****The hunters in the Bible (who are mentioned in the Old Testament) were not of God’s chosen (ie. Ishmael, Esau, Nimrod). **We will be held accountable for every creature as Hebrews 4:13 says.

“Let everything that has breath give praise to the Lord! Hallelujah!” Ps. 150:6
In the love of the Lord.
Jan 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Al_Masetti said:
As an alternative to factory farming, consider raising Kobe Beef.

Each animal is hand massaged and hand fed.

Cannot imagine more tender and respectful animal husbandry conditions.

luciesfarm.com/artman/publish/article_39.shtml

It takes a tender man to make tender beef … with apologies to Frank Purdue.
Click to expand...
:coffeeread:
**Well, isn’t that nice…:nope:

a kinder, gentler form of mistreating animals. They even get beer! WOO HOO!!!:ouch:

It is interesting to think that one can be mercifully merciless…:confused:very strange.
And, yet, people are serious. I do admit that it is a baby step in the right direction. It took several decades to evolve to where we are with the prominent method of the ‘farming’ of animals. One cannot expect it to change overnight. So, I’ll give them an “E” for Effort.:cool:

And now for something a little more to the likings of our more compassionate patrons…**

“Galloping to the aid of the nation’s wild horses and burros, the House voted Friday to rescue them from the possibility of a government-sponsored slaughter and give them millions more acres to roam.”
huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/wild-horses-saved-congres_n_238290.html
 
Marfran said:
fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_041_2009_Release/index.asp

"WASHINGTON, **August 6, 2009 **- Beef Packers, Inc., a Fresno, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 825,769 pounds of ground beef products that may be linked to an outbreak of salmonellosis, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. "
Click to expand...
Did you see the numbers on the amount of food that was wasted? Not just the beef itself, but what it cost to feed these poor creatures? When will people wake up and see that their appetites are wasting trillions of lbs of food and $$$$$?
 
Marfran said:
If this is representative of a “fringe” group, why do people get so huffy on the subject? If this is only representative of a small number of people, a small number of Christians, then why do we see all these people popping in to break up the discussions? And you know what I mean–all the meat threads end up getting shut down. If people that feel this way are just the “fringe,” why doesn’t everybody ignore them? If you ignore someone they will disappear faster than if you pay them a lot of attention.
Click to expand...
It was my thought to inform people of reality. As we often see in politics, for instance, many believe the information they are fed by those who have private agendas that are not necessarily shared in full. Then, when measures get taken based on misperceptions, people then complain about “unintended consequences”. Well, most of the time they’re not really “unintended”, they are simply “undisclosed”.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It was my thought to inform people of reality. As we often see in politics, for instance, many believe the information they are fed by those who have **private agendas **that are not necessarily shared in full. Then, when measures get taken based on misperceptions, people then complain about “unintended consequences”. Well, most of the time they’re not really “unintended”, they are simply “undisclosed”.
Click to expand...
A private agenda means that the purpose serves only the individual.

Is it possible that it is the general public that is misinformed? The general public has no idea how their food is produced.
 
mercifulJan said:
As responsible stewards of God’s creatures, we should learn about what we spend money on and about God’s word more. Didn’t Jesus’ disciples who were fishermen ultimately leave their fishing behind to follow Jesus? I believe so.
The hunters in the Bible (who are mentioned in the Old Testament) were not of God’s chosen (ie. Ishmael, Esau, Nimrod). We will be held accountable for every creature as Hebrews 4:13 says.

“Let everything that has breath give praise to the Lord! Hallelujah!” Ps. 150:6
In the love of the Lord.
Jan 🙂
Click to expand...
What about Cain & Abel’s sacrifices?😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top