The Suffering of Animals Aspect of Vegetarianism

[camerong]

No, it’s not an artificial sentiment. Not at all. My “pets” are my pets, but animals that I know are going to be food are not let all the way in my heart (if that makes sense). I kind of keep them at arm’s length, but that doesn’t mean I don’t treat them well. That means, I don’t name them “baby”, “honey”, “sweetheart”, etc. That means when it comes time to send them to the butcher, I can be at peace with myself that they didn’t grow up and live in jam-packed filthy conditions in misery. I saw a few documentaries on meat factories and felt not an ounce of regret at having “the bull calf” processed because he was treated well until the end. I actually visited an egg factory and I could smell it way before I found it on the road. It was gross.

I know this sounds stupid, but bear with me. Despite the criticism I’m sure to receive I’ll go ahead and share a bit of myself with you. My dogs are like my family. We can argue until we both turn blue and keel over, but they are. My milk cow, and my milk goats, are all “pets”, but they’re different than the dogs. I could never eat my milk cow, or my milk goats. But if I know an animal is going to be food, they don’t get all the way in me.

My bull calf had a big paddock. He was raised on his mother until he started chewing on her…then he was moved to a paddock across from her. He was still bottle fed. He had lots of grass and hay. He had clean water. He liked being talk to, and he loved the pats on the head and the scratches. But I never let him in like I let his mother (who is dear to me). It was kinda sad when he followed me into the trailer and got taken away, but it was time and I knew the time was coming. It’s just different. You look at them differently.

I was born and raised in a big city, so I know where you’re coming from. But somewhere along the way, I changed. My perspective changed because I’m well aware of hiding behind those cellophane packages in the store, far removed from the mistreatment and torture. If people don’t see it, they don’t care. And I’ve been told point-blank “I don’t care, I don’t want to know” by peoeple. So, I feel much worse caving in and buying chicken on sale at the store, and I feel more selfish for taking the easy way out by buying chicken pieces at the store, but I never feel bad about raising an animal on the farm for food because I know I did right by them. But real life sometimes gets in the way of our best intentions and we can’t always do what we wish. But I never feel bad about buying a steer from the farmer next door, I rather feel grateful that I had the opportunity to do so.

Does that make sense?

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I do think that makes sense. Of course, a vegan/vegetarian would say the different feeling between pets and food animals is merely a matter of convenience or cognitive dissonance–in other words, you want meat, and that is the only way to have meat without feeling bad about it. But I’ve been questioning that idea lately. That author I talked about above discusses life as being a cycle, and we should view it as such–a cycle includes death, and death should not be viewed as a negative thing, but an inevitable thing.

I’ve long thought that we could legitimately have leather if, for example, we simply let the cows die a natural death (or perhaps euthanasized them like we would pets when they became to sick or old), and then skinned them. Assuming the kind of farming operation you talk about, is that really any different?

I guess another concern I would have is to wonder how sustainable the humane farming operation is on the big term–in other words, small farms which pasture their animals works well producing small amounts of meat, but could the whole country (or world?) ever be fed by these kinds of operations? In other words, if we could never replace all of the world’s beef with humane, grass-fed beef, is eating meat on whole an inhumane and thus immoral practice?

 

[mchale]

So does this mean that, for a faithful Catholic, vegetarianism is wrong? I’m not sure it does. I have, for a long time, never said it was illegitimate to eat meat, but merely that it is better to not eat meat than to eat it. Does the passage you quoted provide something like a minimum standard, or is it a comprehensive statement?

Being a Vegetarian is certainly consistent with being Catholic. Trappist Monks for example follow a vegetarian diet.

I would say that the statement from the Catechism is something along the lines of a comprehensive statement. There is no particular moral negative that is attached to the simple act of eating meat.

–
Bill

 

[Rence]

I’ve long thought that we could legitimately have leather if, for example, we simply let the cows die a natural death (or perhaps euthanasized them like we would pets when they became to sick or old), and then skinned them. Assuming the kind of farming operation you talk about, is that really any different?

I really don’t know much about the leather industry. I do know that that fake fur that lines coats comes from China in which a type of dog is hit over the head, skinned while still alive but stunned and then thrown into a pile of dying dogs in order to put that faux fur on clothing and coats. I will not put a link to a video showing this procedure courtesy of my microbiology instructor, but it’s beyond any words I have. Don’t anyone tell me those people won’t burn in hell for all eternity because I won’t believe anything else such a person says…but I’ve never visted an operation specifically for leather production.

I guess another concern I would have is to wonder how sustainable the humane farming operation is on the big term–in other words, small farms which pasture their animals works well producing small amounts of meat, but could the whole country (or world?) ever be fed by these kinds of operations? In other words, if we could never replace all of the world’s beef with humane, grass-fed beef, is eating meat on whole an inhumane and thus immoral practice?

Not all meat comes from the big factories. Small farmers like the ones next door raise their cattle and then load them up and bring them to the market, where they are bought by processers who ‘do the dirty work’. Some are better than others, of course. They’re supposed to dispatch the animals humanely and quickly though.

It’s possible to farm-raise for everyone, yes, but not economical since the big beef factory farms do it for significantly less, the smaller guys doing it the “better” way get squeezed out. The smaller farms get out-done by the bigger factory farms. It’s much cheaper to cram all your cows in a barn or paddock, flank to flank, and in filth, and throw them grain to grow them to a certain weight and then ship them out, or process them there. Yes, of course, you can graze your animals in pasture, and give them hay in the winter, and supplement with grain. But when you cram 1000 cows in a field owned by a factory producer, and you look at the same field owned by a smaller family farm with 100 head of cattle spread out, you can see the difference in the bottom line - not only because they’re not taking care of them, but because they’re hiring a bunch of cheap help. It’s just like any other factory, except they’re dealing with living animals and not nuts and bolts.

Plus, I love my cows, but I couldn’t do grass only…it just doesn’t work for me. Must be my field. But I have to supplement with grain and lots of mineral blocks, or they’d shrivel up and blow over in the wind. Even if I risk the wrath of my brother and let the cow out to graze in the “yard”, she still needs supplemental feed. Not a lot, but she gets some. And it’s completely unrealisitic if you have four seasons. But they definitely can be raised in more humane, and less cruel cirumstances. But to raise them on grass only, they must be on some supple pasture.

You know what I don’t get? I don’t get why our dairy farmers get $0.50 a gallon for milk, and the bigger “dairies” that buy that milk turn around and sell us garbage for $3.99 or more a gallon. Sorry, don’t mean to be insulting, but you need to know that whether it’s pasturized or raw, store bought milk is a completely different animal in taste and texture than farm fresh I don’t know what all they do to it besides cook it to death, and drive it across the country for several days, but to me, it’s not even drinkable. Anyways…

I think if people know how animals are mistreated in big factory conditions, and they don’t do anything to change it, yes I think it’s immoral. But that’s just me. I’m not a fire and brimstone kind of person. You’ll answer to God for everything you didn’t do that you know you should have done, and you’ll answer for the things you did do, that you know you shouldn’t have done. You can’t change the world, but you can make a dent in your little part of it. And if more people make a small dent, more will be accomplished.

Yes we are stewards of the earth and its inhabitants, but we are responsible for being so with compassion and charity and by living up to the standards of being “human”.

Not everyone can buy a steer But if one does something to help, I think it’s better than nothing. I don’t think being a vegetarian is the answer (unless it’s something one really wants to do). You can make people aware of the cruelty (the more people who know the more people will do something about it), you can get in on a steer with several people and bring down the cost, sponsor a child in FFA or 4-H so that they learn how to treat animals. Whatever, you’ll think of something

 

[OraLabora]

Being a Vegetarian is certainly consistent with being Catholic. Trappist Monks for example follow a vegetarian diet.

I would say that the statement from the Catechism is something along the lines of a comprehensive statement. There is no particular moral negative that is attached to the simple act of eating meat.

–
Bill

They traditionally though, do it for penance.

Does their diet include fish? The Carthusians do include fish I believe.

Why fish and not other animals?

 

[JRKH]

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.197 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing

Of course it is not wrong for a catholic to be a vegitarian.
It is also not wrong for a catholic to be a meat eater.

Just read what it says…
It is legitimate meaning it is OK to use animals for food and clothing.
It does not say it is required

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

So how do you still eat animals, even if they’re treated humanely up until their relatively-painless death? Does that not cause you any problems? Maybe its an artificial sentiment to be upset with the death of a beloved animal, like one being upset throwing away a favorite teddy bear?

People who raise animals get attached to them, or at least some of them.
My grandparents had a few acres and kept chickens and two milk cows. Naturally the cows had to be bred periodically in order to continue to give milk. Once the calf was born Grandma took wonderful care of it, bucket fed it etc. When it came time for the calf to go to market for veil, she would not come out of the house. She’d stand at the window and cry. But this was just part of the cycle of life on her little farm. Sometimes hard, but a part of life, just like the periodic butchering of chickens.

It never stopped my grandma from making and us enjoying the wonderful things that came from her kitchen. Making her own butter and egg noodles, rich wonderful deep yellow cream from the Guernsey cows. Chicken and gravy made with that cream and so on and so on… Makes me hungry just writing about it.

Peace
James

 

[cmhllama]

The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, does give the okay to eat meat in many places but with restrictions (which Catholics often don’t follow, as Christians aren’t required to keep kosher). But these rules came after sin entered the world. Before sin had entered the world in Genesis, God never said to eat animals, but to have dominion over them, meaning be stewards.

“…God said unto them…have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.’”(Genesis 1: 28,29).

God’s original words in Genesis were to eat plants (seeds, technically). Food wasn’t discussed again until chapter 9 of Genesis. This was after the Great Flood, when the world had been extremely corrupted and rules were necessary to get people back in line. (i.e. Stop eating each other!)

Additionally, yes, God has given us bodies that can process and use meat. The human body is very adaptable to whatever food is available in whatever environment. But our body is more similar to an herbivore than a carnivore or even a true omnivore. The jury’s still out in the research on whether humans are “true omnivores” or “behaviorally omnivores.” I’ve found arguments for both. Either way, America in particular tends to eat way more meat than our bodies are built to handle. The more I research, the more it seems like meat is really “survival food” for us. As in, if there’s a famine and plants are scarce, eat the pig!

Yes, death is inevitable. All animals, all living beings die, whether they are slaughtered in slaughterhouses or maimed in the wild. But the problem is unnecessary killing and needless suffering. The factory farm meat we eat is actually really poor quality as anyone who gets their meat straight from a family farm can attest.

So no, you’re not going against Catholic teaching if you eat meat. However, many other Christian vegetarians, including me, can go on and on about the spiritual benefits of eliminating meat, how it changed our relationship with God and God’s creation. My original reasons for giving up meat were more political than religious, but spirituality became the main reason. Because of this, I could never go back to eating meat. For me, it would be a sin now. Even if my doctor said, “You must eat meat or you will die,” I would just go find another doctor. But by the way, I’ve been vegetarian for seven years (vegan for one) and have always received a clean bill of health.

 

[Fidelia]

Another manifestation of this issue is, as the video posted above discusses, that those with pets discover that their pets are more than mere clumps of organic material, but have wants, emotions, and at the very least, a desire to continue to exist. This exists equally, though perhaps to lesser extents, in animals we use as food, no? How is a cow any different than my dog? Is the only difference that I have come to love my dog, and not the cow?

I’m vegetarian for basically that reason. I find our (American) culture to be rather hypocritical when it comes to the ethical treatment of animals. Why are there so many commercials on TV about helping abused dogs and cats, but none about the cruelty that takes place in factory farms? (and yes, I know that not all farms are factory farms.) Clearly animals are not equal to humans (I don’t think I need to point that out). But I think animals are equal to each other, and that we should view them as such. There’s no difference in dignity between a dog and a pig. (I’m not using the word “dignity” to imply any equality with that of humans.)

ETA: Sorry for not reading the whole thread before replying. I just didn’t realize there was a second page.

 

[mchale]

They traditionally though, do it for penance.

Yes, that and to embrace poverty I think. But I think that is but one legitimate reason why a Catholic might embrace a vegetarian diet. Just a few I can think of:

1. Health
2. Financial reasons (Beans and lentils are a lot less expensive than steak)
3. The sincere belief that eating meat raised in factory farms is not consistent with the Church’s teaching about treating animals humanely.
4. Solidarity with the Poor.
5. Penance.
6. You just don’t like meat.

Does their diet include fish? The Carthusians do include fish I believe.

No, I am pretty sure they only eat milk and eggs in addition to vegetables. There are exceptions though made for those who are in the infirmary.

Why fish and not other animals?

Prior to modern times, when fish has often become a luxury item, fish were often seen as food for the poor. Eaten as staple by people who lived near large bodies of water and rivers. My Dad, growing up in Ireland during the great depression, was able to get fish from the lake near his house a lot more often that he got ham or chicken (and I think beef was something truly rare). Other types of meat therefore were seen as celebratory and thus not suited for someone living a life of penance.

–
Bill

 

[Fidelia]

Of course it is not wrong for a catholic to be a vegitarian.
It is also not wrong for a catholic to be a meat eater.

Just read what it says…
It is legitimate meaning it is OK to use animals for food and clothing.
It does not say it is required

Peace
James

And if I may bring up the Catechism again, it was only pointed out that it states that it is legitimate to use them for food and clothing. But here are some other statement of the Catechism on animals:

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animal, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for the moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by the concern for the quality of life of his neighbour, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 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. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals, if it remains within reasonable limits, is a morally acceptable practice since it contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

2457 Animals are entrusted to man’s stewardship; he must show them kindness. They may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man’s needs.

Saying it is legitimate to use animals for food or clothing means that it is not objectively morally wrong. (I would point out the use of the word “entrusted” in number 2417, and the statement in 2418.)
Clearly, there is no moral imperative not to eat meat. But neither is there one to do so. God did grant us dominion over animals. And the responsibility of stewardship comes with that, I think, as we see above.
But it can be argued that in certain circumstances it certainly could be more ethical not to eat meat. But that varies by circumstance, hence, it is a matter of ethics, not morality. A vegetarian lifestyle is in line with Christian ethics, and there’s nothing against the Church about it.

However, (and I think someone did touch on this in a previous post) there are non-Catholic reasons for being vegetarian, such as claiming that animals have souls just like humans or something.
But there is no inherent reason why a Catholic can’t have the opinion that it a vegetarian diet is the more ethical choice for their lifestyle.

 

[OraLabora]

Of course it is not wrong for a catholic to be a vegitarian.
It is also not wrong for a catholic to be a meat eater.

Just read what it says…
It is legitimate meaning it is OK to use animals for food and clothing.
It does not say it is required

Peace
James

Vegetarianism can be wrong though if followed for the wrong reasons, or if the vegetarian is militant enough to cause harm to a meat eater who is not doing anything per se immoral by eating meat.

Militant vegetarianism does fall into idolatry of animals and thus falls afoul of:

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

by tending to elevate animals to that of persons.

Also some forms of protests by animal lovers can and do cause harm to people and thus are immoral.

 

[mchale]

The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, does give the okay to eat meat in many places but with restrictions (which Catholics often don’t follow, as Christians aren’t required to keep kosher). But these rules came after sin entered the world. Before sin had entered the world in Genesis, God never said to eat animals, but to have dominion over them, meaning be stewards.

“…God said unto them…have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.’”(Genesis 1: 28,29).

God’s original words in Genesis were to eat plants (seeds, technically). Food wasn’t discussed again until chapter 9 of Genesis. This was after the Great Flood, when the world had been extremely corrupted and rules were necessary to get people back in line. (i.e. Stop eating each other!)

I think it is clear that even those God favored ate meat between the expulsion from the Garden and the Flood. God made clothes for Adam and Eve out of Animal Skin and I believe Able kept a flock from which he made sacrifices to God (But which presumably he also used for food for himself).

Additionally, yes, God has given us bodies that can process and use meat. The human body is very adaptable to whatever food is available in whatever environment. But our body is more similar to an herbivore than a carnivore or even a true omnivore. The jury’s still out in the research on whether humans are “true omnivores” or “behaviorally omnivores.” I’ve found arguments for both. Either way, America in particular tends to eat way more meat than our bodies are built to handle. The more I research, the more it seems like meat is really “survival food” for us. As in, if there’s a famine and plants are scarce, eat the pig!

With respect, most of the arguments suggesting that humans are not true omnivores are from people who want everyone to be vegan.

Basic facts.

1. The ancestors of humans have been eating meat for at least 2 million years and many paleo-anthropologists believe that our meat eating is what allowed our brains to grow so large. In addition, our nearest living relative, the Chimpanzees do occasionally eat meat, and its been 6 million or so years since our more recent common ancestor, so it is possible that meat eating amongst human ancestors go back at least that far.
2. Humans cannot get all the nutrients they need from vegetable sources. In particular a vegan diet will be lacking in Vitamin B12. I am not attacking those who choose a vegan life style, but that is just a basic fact. Therefore, prior to dietary supplements, we would have had to eat some animal protein… it might have been eggs stolen from bird nests, but it probably also would have included some meat.
3. Human beings are not very good at digesting… well hardly anything. There is a reason we cook everything. If you ate like our nearest primate relatives ate, you would have to eat virtually constantly (like they do), and still wouldn’t get enough calories or nutrients to thrive. Cooking makes it a lot easier to access the calories and nutrients in foods.

Yes, death is inevitable. All animals, all living beings die, whether they are slaughtered in slaughterhouses or maimed in the wild. But the problem is unnecessary killing and needless suffering. The factory farm meat we eat is actually really poor quality as anyone who gets their meat straight from a family farm can attest.

So no, you’re not going against Catholic teaching if you eat meat. However, many other Christian vegetarians, including me, can go on and on about the spiritual benefits of eliminating meat, how it changed our relationship with God and God’s creation. My original reasons for giving up meat were more political than religious, but spirituality became the main reason. Because of this, I could never go back to eating meat. For me, it would be a sin now. Even if my doctor said, “You must eat meat or you will die,” I would just go find another doctor. But by the way, I’ve been vegetarian for seven years (vegan for one) and have always received a clean bill of health.

It can’t be just a sin for you. It doesn’t work that way. We don’t get to decide what are sins for us and what are sins for others.

Remember, even Jesus ate at least fish (And this was in his glorified state after the resurrection).

–
Bill

 

[Fidelia]

Vegetarianism can be wrong though if followed for the wrong reasons, or if the vegetarian is militant enough to cause harm to a meat eater who is not doing anything per se immoral by eating meat.

Militant vegetarianism does fall into idolatry of animals and thus falls afoul of:

by tending to elevate animals to that of persons.

Also some forms of protests by animal lovers can and do cause harm to people and thus are immoral.

Right, that’s why I wanted to point out that while vegetarianism is in line with our beliefs, there can be improper reasoning for it, and bad ways to go about it. But being vegetarian does not automatically mean that said vegetarian does equate animals with humans.

 

[Fidelia]

I think it is clear that even those God favored ate meat between the expulsion from the Garden and the Flood. God made clothes for Adam and Eve out of Animal Skin and I believe Able kept a flock from which he made sacrifices to God (But which presumably he also used for food for himself).

Eating meat neither caused nor negated God’s favor. God never said “you must eat animals.” Just because the Bible said those things happened, doesn’t mean it’s wrong to be vegetarian now, in the present day.

With respect, most of the arguments suggesting that humans are not true omnivores are from people who want everyone to be vegan.

Basic facts.

1. The ancestors of humans have been eating meat for at least 2 million years and many paleo-anthropologists believe that our meat eating is what allowed our brains to grow so large. In addition, our nearest living relative, the Chimpanzees do occasionally eat meat, and its been 6 million or so years since our more recent common ancestor, so it is possible that meat eating amongst human ancestors go back at least that far.

Ok, that’s fine. It’s still not wrong or bad to be vegetarian.

1. Humans cannot get all the nutrients they need from vegetable sources. In particular a vegan diet will be lacking in Vitamin B12. I am not attacking those who choose a vegan life style, but that is just a basic fact. Therefore, prior to dietary supplements, we would have had to eat some animal protein… it might have been eggs stolen from bird nests, but it probably also would have included some meat.

Yes, it is important to properly replace meat with something healthy in your diet. There is info out there for anyone who needs it. You seem to be trying to claim that since humans in the long past might have had trouble on a veg diet, that means it’s a bad thing currently. That doesn’t follow. I never heard anyone trying to claim that humans were vegetarian all along or anything like that

1. Human beings are not very good at digesting… well hardly anything. There is a reason we cook everything. If you ate like our nearest primate relatives ate, you would have to eat virtually constantly (like they do), and still wouldn’t get enough calories or nutrients to thrive. Cooking makes it a lot easier to access the calories and nutrients in foods.

Ok. You aren’t incorrect, but is that relevant?

It can’t be just a sin for you. It doesn’t work that way. We don’t get to decide what are sins for us and what are sins for others.

Remember, even Jesus ate at least fish (And this was in his glorified state after the resurrection).
Yes he did. That doesn’t mean we have to though. And that doesn’t mean it’s wrong not to.​

Bill

ETA: nota bene: There’s a difference between saying “It’s ok for Catholics to be vegetarian” and “Catholics should all be vegetarian” I’m just trying to convey the former, not the latter.
No one needs to use the Bible, Jesus, or scientific or historical facts the convey that people have eaten meat for a long time and that’s it’s not objectively/morally wrong. I don’t think that’s the issue here.

 

[JRKH]

Vegetarianism can be wrong though if followed for the wrong reasons, or if the vegetarian is militant enough to cause harm to a meat eater who is not doing anything per se immoral by eating meat.

Militant vegetarianism does fall into idolatry of animals and thus falls afoul of:

by tending to elevate animals to that of persons.

Also some forms of protests by animal lovers can and do cause harm to people and thus are immoral.

These issues though are entirely different and seperate from the question I answered in my post. The question was whether the catechism requires us to eat meat which is obviously false.

Militancy to the point of idolatry or casueing harm ot others falls under different sin catagories.

Peace
James

 

[mchale]

ETA: nota bene: There’s a difference between saying “It’s ok for Catholics to be vegetarian” and “Catholics should all be vegetarian” I’m just trying to convey the former, not the latter.
No one needs to use the Bible, Jesus, or scientific or historical facts the convey that people have eaten meat for a long time and that’s it’s not objectively/morally wrong. I don’t think that’s the issue here.

Fidelia, just to be clear, I was specifically answering the claim that the scientific jury was still out on whether humans were omnivores. Also the claim that the person made that eating meat was a sin for them.

I have no problem with anyone being vegetarian, and indeed I am trying to cut back on the amount of meat I eat myself. What I do have a problem with is the sloppy information that is pushed forward by many in the Vegan movement.

–
Bill

 

[buffalo]

Vegetarianism can be wrong though if followed for the wrong reasons, or if the vegetarian is militant enough to cause harm to a meat eater who is not doing anything per se immoral by eating meat.

Militant vegetarianism does fall into idolatry of animals and thus falls afoul of:

by tending to elevate animals to that of persons.

Also some forms of protests by animal lovers can and do cause harm to people and thus are immoral.

Agreed!

 

[OraLabora]

The question was whether the catechism requires us to eat meat which is obviously false.

You’ll get no argument from me on that point! Some religious orders in the Church do not eat meat (Trappists, Carthusians to name two).

 

[camerong]

Since the nutrition issue was mentioned above, let me add: after being a vegetarian for 7 years who is very conscious of nutrition, I firmly believe a vegetarian diet is NOT as healthy as a meat-eating diet. This is primarily due to the lack of quality protein. No natural vegetarian sources of protein exist without harmful baggage–either excess calcium of fiber. For example, dairy has very good protein, but includes calcium at levels that have been shown in long-term studies to be harmful to ones health (highly correlated to breast and prostate cancer imparticular), especially if one used calcium-containing sources as one’s only protein sources. For another example, grains or beans containing protein are also invariably very high in fiber, and to get a reasonable amount of protein from such sources requires getting 30+ grams of fiber from those sources alone (an uncomfortable experience at the least!). For the past 5 years, I have been making use of protein supplements to meet my goals, but these are unhealthy for their own reasons (whey protein has a very high glycemic load, and soy protein has been shown to have unhealthy effects, in addition to being more highly processed than twinkies).

In addition to difficult sources of protein, and B vitamin deficiencies already mentioned above, vegetarian diets are always low in iron and zinc. While this can be remedied by multivitamins, every dietitian would tell you that multivitamins are far from ideal sources for essential nutrients.

This, of course, does not mean that vegetarian diets are immoral.

 

[OraLabora]

This, of course, does not mean that vegetarian diets are immoral.

It does make them sound like a penance though!