V
vstead
Guest
If you want to stick to veggies said:
- Status
A
Augusta1990
Guest
Alright, will do. I’m sorry it came off that way.
V
vstead
Guest
Thanks for reply.
A
Augusta1990
Guest
You’re welcome
God bless
L
Lochias
Guest
Thanks. 'preciate that.
L
Lochias
Guest
Ah. You’re welcome, and interesting reply. If you don’t have “the chip” that makes meat and dairy appealing at all to you, why do you still want to be able to eat meat? Do you think you’re missing out on some of the health benefits, or something? Just curious.
V
vstead
Guest
yes, I do. I’m sure I must be lacking in all sorts of nutrients. I understand there are nutrients only found in meat, fish dairy and that was always the advice I found but there is as much chance of me eating human meat, its that alien to me. I have to add though that I am ( up to now) very healthy. It fascinates my doctor that I have never ever had a cold or flu. Apart from the health issue, I am beyond bored. I cant tell you. Eating out is never about the food as its normally two bits of veg. The strangest thing has been happening lately though, I have been getting a strange urge to chew ( never experienced it before). Anyway. Thanks for taking an interest.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
There are many good reasons Catholic should consider at least eating lower on the food chain, if not altogether becoming vegan.
*]Health – we are killing ourselves eating high-cholesterol, hight toxin (which bioaccumulate) foods.
*]Environmental harms – a vegetarian diet usually has much less impact on the earth in many many ways
*]Ill-treatment of livestock – which is truly gross. At least in Jesus’s culture, they humanely killed the animals using “Kosher” methods, and they didn’t keep them cooped up in foul feeding lots.
I saw a video of the Chicago stockyard and butchery by someone who snuck a camera in. They would herd cattle off the train about 100 feet into the butchery place, then chain a hind leg, hoist them up and start cutting into the cattle alive. A “downed” cow frothing at the mouth was on the train, and wouldn’t get up no matter how much they electric prodded it. They finally chained its leg, dragged it all the way to the butchery, hoisted it up, and started cutting in. I guess we should think of that before ordering a “happy meal.”
St. Francis said: “Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission–to be of service to them whenever they require it… If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.”
There is also a final reason – abstinance and leading an ascetic life for the sake of the kingdom of God. My husband’s uncle, a parish priest in a village in India was vegetarian – out of leading an ascetic life of many penances, even tho there is no requirement for Catholics to be vegetarian. We used to try and get him to eat some fish when he visited, and out of politeness he’d eat a small piece.
Whatever happened to meatless Fridays???
V
vstead
Guest
Wow
S
soma
Guest
I have been a vegetarian for over 40 years. My wife and children are not vegetarian and the decision is for them to make not me. This life style has made me a better Catholic and Christian. My meditation is better too. May all creatures be happy.
B
BluesPicker
Guest
Douay-Rhiems 1899 translation
Many Blessings,
Code:
Genesis 1:11
And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:10-12 (in Context) Genesis 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:11-13 (in Context) Genesis 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Genesis 9:3
And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you:
I simply don't understand the problem the OP posits that a vegan could have with being a Catholic. Many Saints practiced being vegans.
But I know vegans who have harmed their heart from protein deficiencies. And the particular one this happened to is one of the most knowledgeable on the use of herbs and vegan diet.
We are about to start Lent. Fasting excessively can harm the body especially if one makes it a daily practice.
T
thomasf
Guest
I like eating meat. I don’t want to not eat it. I may not need it, but I enjoy eating it. That’s good enough for me. And it doesn’t bother me one bit.
C
cathy091360
Guest
i think there is no problem being a vegeterian and a Catholic.
i find it hard just being a vegerterian, you must find it hard being a vegan.
i am not a full vegeterian, i eat meat twice a week. i hope in the next few months to be able to manage not eating meat, but you must balance your diet.
i would look for some really good books on vegan cooking, to make sure your diet is well balanced. good luck with the vegan diet. say some prayers for me to become a full vegeterian. i do believe it is much healthier being a vegeterian/vegan.
Peace
cathy091360
i find it hard just being a vegerterian, you must find it hard being a vegan.
i am not a full vegeterian, i eat meat twice a week. i hope in the next few months to be able to manage not eating meat, but you must balance your diet.
i would look for some really good books on vegan cooking, to make sure your diet is well balanced. good luck with the vegan diet. say some prayers for me to become a full vegeterian. i do believe it is much healthier being a vegeterian/vegan.
Peace
cathy091360
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
I think our dear OP still hasn’t quite received a good answer to his primary question, with complete and total respect to everyone here, as I realize they’ve tried to deal with it as perhaps best they knew how. And, honestly, I don’t know if I’m going to be able to do any better, but I’ll at least contribute some of my thoughts which may help the OP and possibly others here.
I also see the points that the OP made concerning the use of the word “needlessly” in the Catechism. The question really is: “What does needlessly really mean here? What was it referring to?” So, I ask those of you who advocate meat-eating, especially in an age where, even if we have to use supplements, we can live a perfectly healthy life without killing animals.
OK, however, I may be just about to show my ignorance on the matter of supplements, so, please forgive me, but, doesn’t the material from supplements have also to come from the meat of dead animals? If so, then vegetarians/vegans are rather defeating the purpose by consuming them in place of “actual” meat.
If not, my previous question stands. I mean, I can understand people eating meat in places where they don’t have ready, if any, access to supplements, but, in other cases?
Now, I probably won’t be able to respond directly to the “needlessly” issue in the Catechism, but, I will respond to the issue of killing animals for food below. Several points.
Of course, there’s still the issue of the “needlessly” in the Catechism. What does “needlessly” mean ehre? Would our modern-day situation I mentioned at the beginning of this post qualify? Would simply arguing that meat “tastes better” be a “needful” reason fore consuming meat? Intuitively, I’d say “no”. However, does anyone else have an opinion on this? When “needlessly” was written into the Catechism, perhaps those who were responsible did not consider the issue of supplements. And here is where my station as an “ignorant Protestant” (lol) shows. Are intentions of the authors to be considered when interpreting the Catechism as much as the words themselves, or are the word alone to be considered without any regard to the intention, whether it be flawed, whether there be an oversight, etc. etc., or not? Does every single word of the Catechism bear the same authority as, say, an ex cathedra papal pronouncement or one of a legitimate council? I think the answers to these will have some bearing on the question at hand.
Thoughts on any of this?
I also see the points that the OP made concerning the use of the word “needlessly” in the Catechism. The question really is: “What does needlessly really mean here? What was it referring to?” So, I ask those of you who advocate meat-eating, especially in an age where, even if we have to use supplements, we can live a perfectly healthy life without killing animals.
OK, however, I may be just about to show my ignorance on the matter of supplements, so, please forgive me, but, doesn’t the material from supplements have also to come from the meat of dead animals? If so, then vegetarians/vegans are rather defeating the purpose by consuming them in place of “actual” meat.
If not, my previous question stands. I mean, I can understand people eating meat in places where they don’t have ready, if any, access to supplements, but, in other cases?
Now, I probably won’t be able to respond directly to the “needlessly” issue in the Catechism, but, I will respond to the issue of killing animals for food below. Several points.
- Our teeth clearly demonstrate a design intended for the consumption of meat, though I suppose some who support a gradual special evolution might say that we gradually developed this structure over time because of our eating of meat not because of some pre-conceived design. Another argument might run something along the lines of, “Well, then, were our teeth designed like this before the Fall when we apparently only ate vegetables? Did God just suddenly transofmr the structure of our mouths once He allowed for meat?” Of course, to this last point, one could counter that He may have providentially designed our mouths in the way they are from the beginning so as to support meat in our diets later.
- God gave us animals for food, clearly, in Genesis. Our OP has argued that, in this time, when other sources of nutrients we originally got from meat are available, we no longer have a need to kill animals for it. However, if killing animals was an issue for God, wouldn’t God have never permitted/allowed us to eat meat in the first place? Would He not have found some other way of supplying us with the necessary nutrients in some other way? Someone indeed made the point in an earlier post on this thread that what is morally objectionable is by necessity also sinful and that, since killing animals for food is not sinful per Genesis, it cannot therefore be morally objectionable, at least to God, Who should obviously be our standard. Of course, some could simply argue that, “God works in mysterious ways.” Question is: When is such an argument valid and when isn’t it? Do we perhaps try to reason our way out of supposed contradictions of reason too infrequently with this statement? Should we not be saying this more often than we do? Come to think of it, though, the whole not-sinful=not-morally-objectionable argument would still not loose much if any force in the “mysterious ways” statement. (Sorry, guys, thinking as I write!)
Of course, there’s still the issue of the “needlessly” in the Catechism. What does “needlessly” mean ehre? Would our modern-day situation I mentioned at the beginning of this post qualify? Would simply arguing that meat “tastes better” be a “needful” reason fore consuming meat? Intuitively, I’d say “no”. However, does anyone else have an opinion on this? When “needlessly” was written into the Catechism, perhaps those who were responsible did not consider the issue of supplements. And here is where my station as an “ignorant Protestant” (lol) shows. Are intentions of the authors to be considered when interpreting the Catechism as much as the words themselves, or are the word alone to be considered without any regard to the intention, whether it be flawed, whether there be an oversight, etc. etc., or not? Does every single word of the Catechism bear the same authority as, say, an ex cathedra papal pronouncement or one of a legitimate council? I think the answers to these will have some bearing on the question at hand.
Thoughts on any of this?
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
You know where the Catechism says that animals must not suffer and die needlessly? It’s talking about killing for the sake of killing, i.e. killing and leaving the meat to waste, wiping out entire species, or killing out of cruelty instead of killing humanely for food. You remember scene from Dances with Wolves where the Sioux find the huge field of dead, rotting buffalo killed by settlers only for their hides? That is an example of killing needlessly and wasting. (Of course this was also immoral because the buffalo were a major food source for the Sioux tribes)
It is not wrong to be vegetarian or vegan by any means. To cross over the line and to say you think the Church should ban the eating of animals too, that might be crossing over into the “affording animals the same dignity as humans” category.
There is no moral problem to eating animal products or meats. It is entirely legitimate. In the old Testament God commanded the Israelites to make regular animal sacrfices. Humans even have teeth that are designed especially for tearing meat. It is entirely ordered in nature for humans to eat other animals, as it is for animals to eat other animals.
It is not wrong to be vegetarian or vegan by any means. To cross over the line and to say you think the Church should ban the eating of animals too, that might be crossing over into the “affording animals the same dignity as humans” category.
There is no moral problem to eating animal products or meats. It is entirely legitimate. In the old Testament God commanded the Israelites to make regular animal sacrfices. Humans even have teeth that are designed especially for tearing meat. It is entirely ordered in nature for humans to eat other animals, as it is for animals to eat other animals.
- Status