The Slaughtering of Animals in Factories. Moral dilemmas in the modern world

[springbreeze]

Dear friends

This is what I’ve found so far, but I cannot find on the Vatican site specifically what John Paul II said in regards to animal souls and our ‘smaller brethern’ though everyone knows it is well documented he said it. Help anyone?!

1. Referring to this responsibility in an important passage in Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II wrote: “As one called to till and look after the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15), man has a specific responsibility towards the environment in which he lives, towards the creation which God has put at the service of his personal dignity. It is the ecological question – ranging from the preservation of the natural habitats of the different species of animals and other forms to “human ecology” properly speaking – which one finds in the Bible a clear and strong ethical direction leading to a solution which respects the great good of life, of every life….When it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity” (42).
2. This responsibility extends to the animal world. Animals are the creatures of God, and, according to the Scriptures, he surrounds them with his providential care (Mt 6:26). Human beings should accept them with gratitude and, even adopting a eucharistic attitude with regard to every element of creation, to give thanks to God for them. By their very existence the animals bless God and give him glory: “Bless the Lord, all you birds of the air. All you beasts, wild and tame, bless the Lord” (Dn 3:80-81). In addition, the harmony which man must establish, or restore, in the whole of creation includes his relationship to the animals. When Christ comes in his glory, he will “recapitulate” the whole of creation in an eschatological and definitive moment of harmony.
3. Nonetheless, there is an ontological difference between human beings and animals because only man is created in the image of God and God has given him sovereignty over the animal world (Gen. 1:26,28; Gen. 2: 19-20). Reflecting the Christian tradition about a just use of the animals, the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: “God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure” (2417). This passage also recalls the legitimate use of animals for medical and scientific experimentation, but always recognizing that it is “contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly” (2418). Thus, any use of animals must always be guided by the principles already articulated: human sovereignty over the animal world is essentially a stewardship for which human beings must give an account to God who is the lord of creation in the truest sense.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[HelpingHands]

Hi Springbreeze!
Thanks for sharing such a beautifully and inspirationally written citation from the writings of our Church! My heart wells up within me to read it.
Love, HH

 

[Pug]

There seems to be an assumption that if I eat meat, then some person in third world country X is going to starve because the land in the USA that should have been devoted to feeding that person was used to instead feed a cow, which I, in turn, ate.

Do we have current facts, based on the yield of modern farms that indicate that there is not enough food to feed people because too much of the world’s farmland grows field corn? Or is the problem that third world country X has no roads, no infrastructure, and maybe has a pathetic dictator who won’t allow food to be delivered to his people so that he can have lots of money and keep them oppressed?

I was under the impression that there is enough will in the USA and other countries to feed the starving, but delivery is a serious problem.

In and of itself, I see nothing wrong with devoting extra land to growing beef and pork, so long as there is enough land. I see no need to categorically require that land be used in the most calories per acre way for food, unless land is very scarce. There is benefit in variety of diet and culture and stuff like that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

HelpingHands:

I’m wondering if some people on this thread are feeling judged or condemned because others of us are suggesting a reexamination of some of our attitudes about animal husbandry? I just want to say, I’m certainly not feeling that way. But, I want to present information so we can all be more conscious.

Not in the least. What I find offensive is the fact that you assume that I need to reexamine my attitudes at all.

These are nothing more than opinions, all are just as valid as others.

As far as animals having souls, the Church teaches that all beings have souls, though not in the image of God like humans. Even in the old testament, when instituting the Sabbath, God told the Isrealites that even the beasts of burden were to rest on the Sabbath. These laws that God sent were for the good of all.

Yes, all living beings have souls. But only man, who was created in the image of God has an immortal soul.

It is true that it is not a de fide of the Church that animals will not be in Heaven but there are saints, like St Thomas, who is a Doctor of the Catholic Church, does teach so.

So those who believe this are standing on some solid ground but those who disagree are not necessarily incorrect.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Pug:

There seems to be an assumption that if I eat meat, then some person in third world country X is going to starve because the land in the USA that should have been devoted to feeding that person was used to instead feed a cow, which I, in turn, ate.

Do we have current facts, based on the yield of modern farms that indicate that there is not enough food to feed people because too much of the world’s farmland grows field corn? Or is the problem that third world country X has no roads, no infrastructure, and maybe has a pathetic dictator who won’t allow food to be delivered to his people so that he can have lots of money and keep them oppressed?

I was under the impression that there is enough will in the USA and other countries to feed the starving, but delivery is a serious problem.

In and of itself, I see nothing wrong with devoting extra land to growing beef and pork, so long as there is enough land. I see no need to categorically require that land be u
sed in the most calories per acre way for food, unless land is very scarce. There is benefit in variety of diet and culture and stuff like that.

Great post Pug, this is what I was thinking but could not get it out in words as clearly as you did.

 

[HelpingHands]

Well, I’ve made my case and I can see that some are intractable. I think I’ve been very charitable, but somehow nevertheless this subject clearly evoked an emotional reaction in some. I hope those not participating in the discussion will look at the facts and make their own decisions, not to become harsh and judgemental of those who differ, but to find the right balance for themselves, in light of what the Church teaches, and good Christian stewardship of all of God’s creation.

God Bless you all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pug:

There seems to be an assumption that if I eat meat, then some person in third world country X is going to starve because the land in the USA that should have been devoted to feeding that person was used to instead feed a cow, which I, in turn, ate.

There is hunger in this world not because there isn’t enough food, but because brutal, oppressive and corrupt governments either actively use starvation as a weapon, or because they simply fail to keep the infrastructure needed to get food to their people.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

HelpingHands:

Well, I’ve made my case and I can see that some are intractable. I think I’ve been very charitable, but somehow nevertheless this subject clearly evoked an emotional reaction in some.

Not at all, I just dislike being told how I should think.

Nice of you to use the word “intractable” kind of shows what is going on.

intractable |in?trakt?b?l| adjective hard to control or deal with : intractable economic problems | intractable pain. • (of a person) difficult; stubborn.

No emotional content to that word, yes very charitable.

Could it be that we just hold an opinion that is different from yours and that we hold it just as stongly as you hold to yours?

I hope those not participating in the discussion will look at the facts and make their own decisions, not to become harsh and judgemental of those who differ, but to find the right balance for themselves, in light of what the Church teaches, and good Christian stewardship of all of God’s creation.

Again, very charitable.

Say that those who happen to disagree with you are being “harsh and judgemental” and are unbalanced and holding views that go against what the Church teaches and are bad stewards of all of God’s creation.

Seems you have taken a page from the liberal environmental whacko.

I have yet to see any Church documents that support your opinion in this matter.

 

[Pug]

vern humphrey:

There is hunger in this world not because there isn’t enough food, but because brutal, oppressive and corrupt governments either actively use starvation as a weapon, or because they simply fail to keep the infrastructure needed to get food to their people.

I never can tell if you mean to disagree or agree. Its probably just me. We are in agreement, afaik.

 

[springbreeze]

Dear friends

This thread is about the moral dilemmas of modern farming, animal husbandry and slaughter and crop production etc and there are moral dilemmas to it, both for humanity, animals and the environment.

Presently we are just batting back and forth our own ideals which have been interpreted from Catholic Teachings (now there’s a dilemma too! ), but I am interested to find out some of the wider implications or benefits to these farming methods we use presently and just exactly how problematic they are.

I am sure no-one means to offend anyone and further to this this is a very interesting and valid topic to discuss and it would not be prudent to see it close down.

Can anyone provide pros and cons for the methods of farming we have at present so we can take a proper look at the morals of them?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pug:

I never can tell if you mean to disagree or agree. Its probably just me. We are in agreement, afaik.

We agree.

We are not called to be vegetarians (or vegans.)

There is not a world-wide food shortage. Therefore feeding animals does not deprive humans of food.

And there is no moral prohibition against slaughtering animals.

I wonder how many people who are upset about our farming practices are actually farmers and ranchers?

 

[buffalo]

The slaughtering of animals in factories - Is this a PC term for slaughterhouses?

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

The slaughtering of animals in factories - Is this a PC term for slaughterhouses?

Yep.

I am amazed at the number of people who think meat is manufactured behind the counter at the supermarket. When they find out it’s actually made of dead animals, they get upset.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Ray_Scheel]

HelpingHands:

As far as animals having souls, the Church teaches that all beings have souls, though not in the image of God like humans.

I’ve always understood it along the lines that they had a spirit/lifeforce, not a soul, but I agree with the gist of what you are saying on that line.

HelpingHands:

It’s actually in our self interest to treat animals humanely, because then they are healthier, and we are healthier. When modern overcrowding exists, then other unhealthy interventions such as heavy use of antibiotics and hormones must be used, which are harmful to our health.

This is actually the better argument against grain fattened beef, as the feedlot beef are measurably less healthy for us when we eat it.

However, because of how agricultural patterns have been going, I’ve got trouble believing (at least in North America) that the use of grain in feedlots is keeping bread of the tables of the poor. We’ve got less farmland in production now than 20 years ago, but are producing more and more grain each year. The biggest challenges in getting the surplus grain to the poor around the world are “last mile” issues, often tied to local unrest that was ultimately causing the food shortage to begin with. Yes, there are many poor in the states too, and people who go hungry too often, but its hard to starve here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ray_Scheel:

with. Yes, there are many poor in the states too, and people who go hungry too often, but its hard to starve here.

“Hunger” in the United States is officially defined by nutritional status. It is quite possible to be grossly obese and classed as “hungry” because the diet is unbalanced.

It isn’t about not having enough food, it’s about dietary habits.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

If you are so concerned with how animals are killed and the life they lead before they are killed for food, then HUNT them! Kill them yourself.

You will never gain an apprecation for the animal we eat and use until you see to completion the whole ugly but necessary process; The life and death of an animals are necessary so you and your family can be fed and clothed.

The people that grow our food and raise our meat, the family farms are fully aware of this. They hunt, they kill the animals with the least amount of suffering to the animal. They do not waste. They respect the sacrifices made by the animals as part of Gods plan.

Is it better to paid someone else to do your killing for you? Wrapping the meat in the clean packages that you buy in the store. All so you don’t have to get your hands bloody. The ethical and moral answer is NO. Paying someone to do your dirty work is a greater afront to God and than doing it youself.

Not eating meat involves the death of living, breathing organisms, plant matter. Does a plant react when its been sheared from its root or stem. In its life, some plants will send up new shoots before a main plant dies. How does it know? The answer is that a plant is alive just as animals are. Should plants be sacrificed before animals?

God put both on the earth to FEED us! We should never take anything for granted. And Respect everything. Use the resources that we were given for the intended purposes.

 

[Fox]

vern humphrey:

We agree.

We are not called to be vegetarians (or vegans.)

There is not a world-wide food shortage. Therefore feeding animals does not deprive humans of food.

And there is no moral prohibition against slaughtering animals.

I wonder how many people who are upset about our farming practices are actually farmers and ranchers?

We are not called to be pure meat eaters either. It is fact that people on a plant based diet live longer and healthier than those that have meat in their diets. Something to think about it.

Tell that to the starving masses in the poor countries in South America and Africa.

There is a moral obligation to slaughter an animal correctly in the most humane way possible.

I am upset with the factory farms that disregard common decency in the slaughtering of animals. If you eat meat kill it yourself or go to small farm families for it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fox:

We are not called to be pure meat eaters either. It is fact that people on a plant based diet live longer and healthier than those that have meat in their diets. Something to think about it.

Fallacy of Two Alternatives. No one has said we are " called to be pure meat eaters."

Fox:

Tell that to the starving masses in the poor countries in South America and Africa.

What’s that supposed to mean? Do you deny that enough food is produced in this world to feed everyone?

Do you deny that most starvation is brought on by the use of famine as a weapon, by warlords and gangs blocking roads, and by the lack of infrastructure to get food in?

There is a moral obligation to slaughter an animal correctly in the most humane way possible.

Fox:

I am upset with the factory farms that disregard common decency in the slaughtering of animals. If you eat meat kill it yourself or go to small farm families for it.

And if you live in the middle of New York City, where to you go to kill your meat, or to find a small farm family?

 

[Fox]

Bobby and Vern,
You can do anything you so choose, you don’t have to buy factory meat, dairy and eggs, you choose it. You can find kosher foods, organic foods, free range foods. It all boils down on how much it means to you and how badly you want it.

Vern,
I agree that the warlord scum need to be brought down, it is the majority of the problem but, there is those people in the world that have no strife and are starving. Also starving people are starving people, warlords or no warlords, thus a shortage of food to these peoples.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fox:

I agree that the warlord scum need to be brought down, it is the majority of the problem but, there is those people in the world that have no strife and are starving. Also starving people are starving people, warlords or no warlords, thus a shortage of food to these peoples.

But they are not starving because of a world-wide food shortage. If we properly distribute it, there is plenty of food for everyone. The problem is distribution, not production.