Marc Barnes recently met a girl he thought he might be interested in...until he found out that she was a pro-choice vegetarian. He goes on to dissect the silliness of this viewpoint, which, from the Catholic perspective, is basically an exercise of shooting fish in a barrel. It’s such an obviously inconsistent position that many of my Catholic friends are baffled by how someone could hold both of those views simultaneously: How can you respect animal life but not human life? they wonder. To me, it makes sense. In fact, I used to be a pro-choice vegetarian. And while I now vehemently disagree with at least the pro-choice part of it, I still find the vegetarian/pro-choice position to be an intellectually consistent—if chilling—part of the atheist-materialist worldview.
The way I used to see it, all life is just chemical reactions, no one type of life any more inherently special than the next. In this view, the only reason that a human being would be considered more valuable than, say, a squirrel is because the human has higher levels of intelligence and consciousness than his furry friend. The “truth” of this position seemed obvious. For example, most of us would have no problem killing a simple lifeform like a gnat, but we would be opposed to killing a more intelligent lifeform like a dog. Increased intelligence equals increased value.
I would ponder this sort of thing whenever I ate meat, imagining what must have gone through the pig’s mind before it was slaughtered to provide the meat for my BLT sandwich. Maybe it didn’t experience the level of fear that an adult human would, but it had enough intelligence to know that something bad was happening. I began to do research into the conditions of modern slaughter houses, and was disturbed by what I found. I decided to adopt a mostly vegetarian diet. The few exceptions I made were based on the animals’ low levels of consciousness: I ate shrimp and shellfish as a protein source, justifying this choice on the grounds that their brains were not as complex as those of mammals and birds.
My intentions were good, and my views were internally consistent. But the implications for human life were chilling.
While I donated money to PETA and other animal rights organizations to help save pigs and cows, I also donated money to Planned Parenthood to support the abortion industry. I had not the slightest qualm about the idea of an early-stage abortion. On my spectrum of worthiness of life, adult humans were on the far right side; fetuses were on the left. Unborn humans were somewhere around shrimp and worms in terms of value, because they could not display any intelligence. And so it seemed unfair to ask women to turn their lives upside down for a lifeform that had all the value of a crustacean.
Even though it would be years before I would come to see that this entire understanding of human life was founded on a lie, I would occasionally get a glimpse of the chilling implications of this view. For example, one time in college I heard a professor make the statement that it would be more ethical to kill a newborn baby than a pig, since pigs are more intelligent and aware of their surroundings. I scoffed at the absurdity of such a notion. Yet when I tried to argue against it, I realized that he was actually using my own worldview to justify his position.
Also in college, I heard a classmate (who was a vegetarian too) make the case that severely mentally disabled people should be euthanized. I thought it to be one of the most offensive, disgusting statements I’d ever heard. I was even able to come up with some defense about it being wrong because we’re evolved to protect members of our own species…but such a coldly scientific argument sounded lame and hollow. There was absolutely nothing in the atheist lexicon that allowed me to articulate just how morally repugnant such an idea really was.
When I began researching Catholicism, one of the many things that immediately resonated as true was the Church’s teaching on the dignity of man. This idea that every single one of us has dignity—a dignity that exists simply by virtue of being human, regardless of our of size, intelligence, consciousness, or any other observable traits—was like an articulation of a truth that had been written on my heart all along. Somewhere deep down inside, I had known that that this was true, which is why I’d been so horrified by the professor and the classmate’s statements. As with so many other things in life, Catholicism took all my well-meaning energy and channeled it in a healthy way: I maintained a compassion for animals, but came to see that the members of my own species were in an entirely different category than other lifeforms, because we are the only ones made in the image and likeness of God.
These days I’ve gone back to eating meat, though I try to support local farms and other organizations that treat their animals humanely. I maintain respect for vegetarians, and understand why a lot of people choose to go that route. What’s troubling, however, is that this idea of intelligence = value is increasingly prevalent in our culture. It might make a certain amount of sense when applying it to other animals, but when we evaluate people by this standard, throwing out the millennia-old concept of the inherent value of human life, the results are chilling indeed.
Comments
Post a Comment
Bizarre. Truly bizarre. The Church’s teaching on “human dignity”? A church that, for 19 centuries supported and traded in human slaves, not even admitting slavery was wrong? A church that for millenia denied equal rights to Jews and women? Gimme a break! This caterwauling on the part of the historically ignorant leads to revisionism of the most callous kind, which is exactly what Jennifer is doing. If you believe any of this nonsense she’s posted, perhaps you believe in the Easter Bunny, too.
Unfortunately Bob, you are ignorant of actual Church Doctrine. The Catholic Church never taught women or Jews or anyone else should not be given equal rights. While some IN the Church might have, the doctrine never ever did. Anyone who did teach these things as doctrinal truth was guilty of heresy.
Just as individual priests may tell couples it is okay to contracept or utilize in-vitro, the Church Doctrine denies these things clearly. So, please remember to go to the source before making your statement about what the Church teaches about any social issue.
Bob - I don’t accept that you have the facts right, but what if you did? Jennifer is saying that becoming Catholic brought her personally to a universal respect for human life. Wouldn’t that be a good thing, even from your perspective, whatever the history of the Church? Lashing out at such a post just makes you sound like a fountain of anger, spewing out randomly. Is that really the face of atheism you want to present to the world?
I never understand how those who believe abortion justified often say the embryo or fetus is different,. And yet always forget that everyone arguing and commenting was once a zygote, once a blastocyst, once an embryo, once a fetus and yet they were allowed to the opportunity to become adults and comment. If you were given the chance to grow why don’t you think it only fair to allow those others the chance too?
The choice is NOT between killing and eating animals and having an abortion. It’s about whether fleeting desires for flesh justify causing the suffering and death of another feeling being. Since the choice is between healthy and humane vegetarian foods or foods that require needless violence and suffering, I choose vegetarian foods. Jesus was the prince of peace, not a bloody butcher.
Catholic Scare Word of the day: “abortion industry”
Hey, Jen, remember when you used to write like a person instead of a fear-mongering pundit? Try that again sometime, it was really good when you did that.
I think we all need to read Genesis again, and get a grip on Aquinas’ order of being.
I agree that the pro-choice/vegetarian worldview is vastly inconsistent. I am a pro-life vegan and to me that makes a lot more sense because it respects ALL life. I do agree absolutely that animals and people are on a different plane, though. Like you say, people have a soul and are made in the image and likeness of God. That makes them superior to animals. But I believe this superiority actually gives us a greater responsibility to care for the creatures under us. While not made in his image and likeness and possessing of a soul, animals are still God’s creatures and they are worthy of our respect and care. I’m actually surprised that many pro-lifers can go on eating meat, when vegetarianism is really just an extension of a pro-life worldview. Well, just my two cents. :)
I could not agree more, Audrey. Well articulated.
There is a problem with saving the whales, it is that they are most free. Those animals are the largest in the ocean. Compared to them, there are no other fish in the sea. Save the plankton.
Jest aside. The faithful have long treated animals very well. Husbandry had a very respectful notion to it.
Jen-
Judging from the comments, you are riling up pro-aborts, atheists, vegetarians, and holier than thou folks. Wow! And all with one simple post! :)
- Trig (trigger @ washboardabs.net)
Bob,
You must be a troll, as I think I have seen your bomb throwing before on here. But the Catholic Church was speaking out against slavery almost 100 years before Protestantism was even born. Sicut Dudum by Pope Eugene IV talkes about this. In this encyclical dated January 13th 1435, His Holiness Pope Eugene iV argues against enslavement of those of the Canary Islands and surrounding islands. I extol you Bob, to please know your facts before you make an argument, is is just common decency.
There is a good tradition of, for lack of a better term, “holy vegetarianism” in the Church. In fact the Rule of St. Albert (the original Carmelite rule) says monks should not eat meat unless at sea, which seems to be in line with the entire monastic tradition up to that point. I am thinking of doing so myself because I am a slave to the passion of anger, and our Lord said some demons can only be cast out through prayer and fasting. If meat does stir up those passions (and St. Thomas Aquinas has said so as well) then it might be better to abstain entirely for the sake of the Kingdom.
I am a vegetarian today on Thomistic grounds. I do recognize the ontological difference between humans and animals that you so carefully identify. It’s intrinsically wrong to directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what. But animals are in a whole different category: their lives may be weighed on the scale of consequences.
//
However, like anything good (here’s the Thomistic part), animals shouldn’t be destroyed for the sake of something of smaller worth. If I need to kill an animal to preserve my health, that’s morally fine, because my health is worth more than the animal’s life. Other human values like hospitality and even convenience might also be worth more than the animal’s life. But it’s clear to me that my own passing pleasure—especially since I can get eating pleasure in other ways—isn’t more valuable than the animal’s life (and it’s certainly not a good reason to torture an animal with factory-farming techniques).
//
The Church doesn’t—and shouldn’t—teach that we should all be vegetarians (all of our circumstances are different. Some people need meat for their health. Some need it to keep peace in their homes, etc. Those people have a good reason to kill animals). But the Church does teach that it’s wrong to cause animals to suffer “needlessly.” (see CCC no. 2418)
//
The PETA-crowd’s failure to recognize the dignity of human life should not make Catholics, in reaction, refuse to recognize the value—even if it’s a lower kind of value—of animals’ lives.
Thank you for this article! I guess at one point, I was also a pro-life vegitarian, and my views changed when I went to college. I still have respect and love for animals, and don’t want to promote animal cruelty, but I am more focused on preventing human cruelty first.
There is far too much human cruelty in the world.
It was once said that if there were no God there would be no Atheists. The first foolish comments about the Easter Bunny in this blog highlights the foolishness of Atheists- vegetarian’s etc. They have falsified data on Polar bears(Global warming zany theory)and worry more about Dolphins than Tuna fish in Japanese fisherman nets. Sadly they put farm animals ahead of babies-victims of abortion. In Abortions half of victims are girls yet they are regarded below animals in their twisted Vegitarian-Atheist agenda-priorities.Lastly there are tens of millions more boys thasn girls in India,Japan and China due to sex selection & widespread abortion which does not sad to say ever bother Joe Biden or his Atheist-Vegetarian cohorts.
Allen wrote: Jesus was the prince of peace, not a bloody butcher.
-
What do you make of this passage from Matt. 8?
-
30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, “If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine.”
32 And He said to them, “Go.” So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water.
-
Take your time…
Jesus is indeed called the Prince of Peace, but I don’t think He in His complexity can be so easily reduced.
Its important to remeber that the problem with this way of thinking comes not from the vegtarian position but from Atheist position. Vegetarianism remains a great alternative to supporting horrendous factory farm cruelty, which is certainly in line with all Catholic principals.
Your point of view on things is always of interest. It sure seems to stir up some angry comments from the more uncivil, so my hat is off to you for putting up with the rude. I am afraid I would not be so patient or nice, and that is why I’ll never have a blog—I am too full of my own opinions based on Truth that would certainly be open to attack. So—good for you!
“Lastly there are tens of millions more boys thasn girls in India,Japan and China due to sex selection & widespread abortion”
The writer is not fact checking. Japan is in no way like China or India in most regards. In reality, has at birth M/F ratio of 1.06. Compared with India 1.12, China 1.13, USA 1.05, Italy 1.07, and in zero abortion, Ireland it is 1.07.
Thus, Japan has a BELOW average ratio of males births - the exact opposite of the writers assertion that sex selection abortion is practiced in that society. While China and India do show an unnatural number of male births - supporting the sex-selection abortion hypothesis.
Japan also has third lowest infant mortality rate in the world versus the 34th ranked USA with its “best in the world” healthcare system.
The “atheist—>vegetarian—>abortion” linkage however is a complete figment of the imagination and a lazy assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
Confirming that Bob is a troll!
The vegitarian-pro-choice is atheistic comparison is not, I believe, accurate. It is more a secular worldview. You have a lot of atheists in the secular worldview but you do have a lot of Christians that reside there too. To ascribe it to atheists alone is disingenuous.
So many negative comments right away! So I just wanted to say thank you for a beautiful and thoughtful article. My favorite part was this: “As with so many other things in life, Catholicism took all my well-meaning energy and channeled it in a healthy way….” A great description! You don’t have to give up anything that’s truly good when you follow Christ; if you hang in there you will have everything back after all. I hope it doesn’t upset you too much to read the nasty comments, I don’t think I could deal with it. You’re doing a great job!
wooh! I got a Jenmention!
I don’t now if anyone’s quoted it yet, but:
“Wherever there is animal worship there is human sacrifice.”
G.K Chesterton
“It was once said that if there were no God there would be no Atheists.”
No. It goes more like this: “If there were no god-believers there would be no atheists.”
The writer is asserting the “god” as a fact something for which there is no real evidence (of any of the the thousands of gods found in huamn cultures, past and present). It is the belief, or absence of belief, in a specific god, or gods, that creates the condition in question. Believers in one god requires one to be atheistic about other religion’s or culture’s gods.
It is the absence of a belief in any of the supernatural gods of humans cultures past and present, all god stories are treated equally.
@DcH - “The writer is asserting the “god” as a fact something for which there is no real evidence (of any of the the thousands of gods found in huamn cultures, past and present).” There is a God; you just refuse to see and therein is the real tragedy.
DcH,
I agree with you with the following exception. “If there were no Theists, we would all be Atheists” AKA People living full non superstitious lifes. God as fact? Not in my world.
Almost the entire first paragraph before she brought up her atheist bona fides. I’m still looking for a history of why she changed sides. That would be a great article.
Jen, Please write a piece why you became catholic (or link it if it is online). Thanks in advance,
Rover.
Sorry, I mis-typed above, why you became a believer from a non believer. Thanks.
Eating meat makes sense to me. God made the rocks by the seashore, the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and us humans. We are different then they there is no doubt because we are made in the image and likeness of God.
What about the rest. Well, vegetarians can eat veggies. Why not rocks and birds and fish? Rocks are also created by God for us to use. We don’t eat rocks because the uses of rocks are different then food. But fish and birds are usable for food, then I don’t see why we can’t eat them. They are just like plants, they are living things made by God. Having a brain makes no difference in terms of food choice in my opinion. What makes each different is the ontological designs of each according to God. Eggs don’t have brains. Milk doesn’t have brains. A computer has a brain. But having a brain or not doesn’t determine one to be food or not. We don’t eat computers because it’s not a food item. We can eat eggs and drink milk because they are nourishing. Illicit drugs are consumable biological chemicals but we shouldn’t take them cause they are harmful.
Basically, I can’t see any sound reasoning to not eat animals as food.
Thank you for supporting local farms.
I slaughter and butcher animals for a living in a custom meat shop. I take pride in doing my work well. It’s not easy to do sometimes. It is a very personal act to take a life, animal or Mankind. You have to talk to the animals and connect with them. It’s sort of odd that we treat animals with what seems like more dignity than how most people treat each other (especially since the evolution of the ever present cell-phone/mobile device). But, animals are here for us to keep and use well just like in the First Command given by God to Mankin in Genesis. “Keep the garden.”
The following link contains a good video of the type of shop I work in.
http://vimeo.com/22077752
Silly Bob. Catholic opposition to slavery is mighty old—just another example of the Church being right before anyone else.
Hi Rover,
I’m a follower of Jennifer’s other blog and here’s a link to the audio version of her conversion story. :-)
http://www.conversiondiary.com/2010/09/how-i-went-from-lifelong-atheism-to-orthodox-catholicism-audio.html
(Didn’t mean to answer for Jennifer, just trying to help out.)
I am edified by good moral reasoning by Catholic commenters who are pro life and abstain from meat even while recognizing that eating meat is morally licit. And, I, too was once a pro choice vegetarian, with similar reasoning that the author of the article describes and I now absolutely oppose abortion, contraception etc though I still abstain from meat (I occasionally have a small amount of seafood). There are plenty of good reasons: to avoid unnecessary suffering of animals, needless damage to the environment, and to ease the world’s human hunger needs which are very ill served by feeding vast amounts of grain to animals, that could feed people who are starving. It is also healthful to avoid meat or eat very little of it! On Fridays and during Lent (except Sundays) I abstain strictly also from seafood, dairy and eggs.
If a justification of eating meat is really needed, how about our physiology? Don’t our teeth and digestive system make clear that by nature we’re meant to be omnivores? Also, I believe the position of our eyes is characteristic of carnivores.
ARM,
To back you up with a biblical reference see Genesis Chapter 9. When Noah and family left the boat the Lord gave them permission to eat meat as they had plants. Hebrew history teaches that all animals and humans were herbivores until this time. (Maybe that’s why the lions and gazelles were not freaking out aboard the ship?) Though we all know T-Rex was a meat-eater, in the Bible this is where the consumption of meat is made permissible. It also happens to be the first instance of Kosher law where the command to let the life-blood be drained before consuming is given.
“He goes on to dissect the silliness of this viewpoint”
Bzzzt! It’s two viewpoints, not one.
“It’s such an obviously inconsistent position”
Bzzzt! It’s two positions, not one.
“How can you respect animal life but not human life?”
Well, first we would have to agree on the definition of “human life”.
Of course you have your definition, but it seems that there are many who disagree with your definition. So your connection between “animal life” and “human life” is flawed because there is not a proper agreement on the definition of “human life”. While we are discussing this, let’s discuss artificial insemination (widely used for animals?) compared to your doctrine against in vitro fertilization. Any need to be consistent there?
“To me, it makes sense.”
Perhaps only because you have accepted the Catholic definition of “human life”. Well, why don’t you pass a constitutional amendment placing your definition into the fundamental law of the land?
“part of the atheist-materialist worldview.”
Bzzzt! Category error. What nonsense. There are in fact laws against killing “human beings” in case you did not know. And there are laws against cruelty to animals. And none of these laws have all that much to do with “atheism” of course. And “materialism” is simply “reality”.
“no one type of life any more inherently special than the next”
What a stupid thing to say! Not even Buddhists agree!
“Increased intelligence equals increased value.”
In many respects, that makes good sense. Define “cruelty”. Define “pain”. Define “emotion”. The proper word is “sentience”.
“But the implications for human life were chilling.”
Only in your irrational Catholic imagination.
“this entire understanding of human life was founded on a lie”
That is your opinion.
“It made me realize that my pro-choice viewpoints were putting me in the position of deciding who was and was not human”
Yes. Someone has to decide. Now you have changed your decision.
“It took my breath away to witness the level of evil that normal people can fall into supporting.”
Define “evil”. Why has there not been good agreement on the definition of “evil” over the centuries even up to the present day?
“one of the many things that immediately resonated as true”
Well, it’s an option shared by many, but not everyone. Why not? Define “true”.
“It was once said that if there were no God there would be no Atheists.”
Hilarious. Try this: If there were no believers in any gods, everyone would be atheists. Or this: If there really were one or more gods, you would think they would be able to communicate with humans a little better. Their complete failure says something about their lack of existence. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
“It sure seems to stir up some angry comments”
Irrationality should always be opposed.
“my hat is off to you for putting up with the rude”
It would seem that you think Jennifer actually reads these comments. There is no evidence that your opinion is correct.
“Catholic opposition to slavery is mighty old”
And completely irrelevant.
“Didn’t mean to answer for Jennifer”
Jennifer has never been known to answer for herself.
“I am edified by good moral reasoning by Catholic commenters”
Hilarious.
“feeding vast amounts of grain to animals”
Making ethanol from corn is soooo much more important.
Jennifer,
Thanks, I’ll listen. Appreciate it!
And if wicked men insult and hate you, blessed are you.
It would seem, some are mad that you are pro-life, some that you are no longer atheist, some that you are no longer a pure vegetarian and some, that you dare to articulate your story and how your heart was moved over the years to discern the why articulated by the Catholic Church, that abortion is wrong, and the why in your heart, you could not sustain the views you held.
Thank you for a great piece and your daily illustration of grace and courage under fire.
If any of us saw the killing of all the animals we have eaten in a lifetime, we would surely hurl because modern urban and suburban life and TV successfully hides that reality from us. But we have to go by God’s word to settle it.
In a vision, God shows Peter the previous forbidden meats of the Jews and God tells Peter….,“kill and eat”.
Here:
Acts 10:11”...and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
Act 10:12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
Is there a wonderful way to kill?....I doubt it.
“And if wicked men insult and hate you, blessed are you.”
Hilarious. Define “wicked”. Define “blessed”. Why are you using the word “hate”? Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But irrationality is insulting.
“you dare to articulate your story”
It’s such an irrational “story”. Seems like a fairy tale.
“your daily illustration of grace and courage under fire”
There’s no indication that she reads the comments and even knows that she is “under fire” for her irrationality.
“But we have to go by God’s word to settle it.”
Hilarious. Who gets to decide what is truly “God’s word”? What is done to those who dare to disobey “God’s word” as defined by the theocrats?
Mike McCants
The Church actually gets to decide what is truly God’s word. You as an Irishman know what is believed here and you came because you are not getting attention at home for these rants. I therefore appeal to your family to once again pay attention to your insights by removing their noise canceling headphones….albeit we can all empathize with them.
Jesus ate fish. The End.
@ Sean Phelan III - Your post is hilarious! Mike McCants is a troll - I recognize the verbiage.
@ Dave - Jesus declared all food “clean”. The End.
Joseph, I totally agree.
I used to be prochoice before returning to the Catholic church, so I see what Jen means.
After speaking to a priest (going to the source!), I received and understanding about the value of life and that peoeple do not have the right to kill an innocent child. IMO, if you did the deed, suck it up, have the child and raise it! Being Pro-choice is a cop-out and so is having an abortion.
As for being vegetarian, I became one about year before going back to the catholic church. Why? well, I love animals and used to love ordering duck whenever I went out for chinese. As many times, I visited a pond where I’d go to feed the ducks, swans and geese. It just hit me that I was a hypocrite. Here I am feeding ducks and admiring God’s creatures, yet I go and eat them….For me, that is the reasoning of me being vegetarian.
Sometimes you need to look at yourself and realize your actions to make positive changes in your life and for others…Something that surely is lacking in America today where it’s all ME ME ME…
“But we have to go by God’s word to settle it.”
Hilarious. Who gets to decide what is truly “God’s word”?
—my reply: You’re kidding right? Ever hear of the bible?
Pro-choice Vegetarian ..now that’s hypocritical!
Much of vegetarianism is based on sentimentality. Cutting up an animal is what’s supposed to happen; that is not “unneccessary suffering”. Especially now with clearer understandings of how starchy carbs - the basis of too many veggie diets - spike insulin and make us fat. Meats (and low-starch veg) are the way to stay healthy and lean.
Also, too many Catholics don’t have a sense of the kind of Jew Christ was: he was orthodox and certainly ate meat, especially at Passover, which is required. Vegetarians are reinterpreting biblical laws regarding meat consumption; it might be helpful for occasional fasting or for religious orders, but not for most of us, especially as we get older and fatter.
““But we have to go by God’s word to settle it.”
Hilarious. Who gets to decide what is truly “God’s word”?
—my reply: You’re kidding right? Ever hear of the bible?”
—MY reply: You’re kidding right? Ever hear of the Koran? The Tanakh? The Bhagavad Gita? The Purvas? The Tibetan Book of the Dead? The Tao Te Ching? The Kojiki? The Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah? The Book of Mormon? Dianetics?
Now let me repeat Mike McCants’ question: Who gets to decide what is truly “God’s word”?
And here’s my own followup question: What do you do when (not if) people DISAGREE?
Brian….you are Mike McCants. There can’t be two trolls here with the same meter to their writing.
Jennifer, I tried, I really tried but at minute 25 of 45, I had to shut it off. I was a rambling recording of why Jennifer became a believer.
Points:
1. I agree with her parents view of the world completely, even the begging of not being outed as Atheists.
2. When shortages occur, see how much of the golden rule exist.
3. Using a Category x drug for dvt is very unusual unless your are a factor II person (thanks to my wife, a RVT for that info). (dvt is what happens when you don’t exercise on an airplane on a long flight typically).
4. I think the money quote was “I knew love exists as a reality external to the material world” when my first child smiled at me.
5. Immediatly, she made her first prayer and heard….nothing (for 8 months till I found a book on a back wall).
She was an atheist, much like I was a christian. I was brought up in a home with little thinking about what I was. She apparently never thought about WHY she was an atheist, she just didn’t believe in god. I thought about why I was a christian and realized why I didn’t believe in god.
I now concede she was an atheist, a non believer in god, but she didn’t reason her way to it. She, as Catholics would say, was a Cradle Atheist (vs. the more common Cradle Catholic).
I finally understand her motivations.
Sorry to bore you all, it was a revelation.
Rover.
Jennifer,
I wrote a long list of what I heard (I could only make it till minute 25 of 45) but, rather than type it all again…in a nutshell.
1. I agree with her parents
2. Shortages would NOT enforce the golden rule
3. money quote “I knew love exists as a reality external to the material world” when my first baby smiled at me.
4. She then said her first prayer. It wasn’t answered for 8 months until she found a book on a wall at a store.
my revelation was, Jen was a “cradle atheist” much like a “Cradle Catholic” in that she was raised by parents and she never thought about her belief. She truely didn’t believe in god but never thought about why. I was brought up to believe in god but always questioned everything. In my world and thinking, God didn’t hold up.
I now understand that Jennifer truely was an unexamined atheist, but an atheist none the less.
Rover.
An interesting discussion on this subject can be found at
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/radical-animal-rights-group-peta-launches-x-rated-porn-site/
How many people eat ham or chicken or hamburger nearly every day?
Row v. Wade was 38 years ago.
Trying to connect these two is way, way beyond ridiculous.
Pass that “Personhood” constitutional amendment! Georgia is trying? Catholic bishops opposed what was proposed in 2008? Who’s confused? Defeated in Colorado as too extreme. Also proposed in Mississippi. Who knew?
“There can’t be two trolls here with the same meter to their writing.”
Hilarious. I have an alibi for 7:39 PM CDT - I was calling the police.
“What do you do when (not if) people DISAGREE?”
Darn. That’s way too sophisticated for me to think up. :-) Sharia differs from Catholic doctrine? Who knew?
“I now understand that Jennifer truly was an unexamined atheist”
Socrates: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
My opinion is that most religious people never “examine” their religion.
“people do not have the right to kill an innocent child”
I agree. There are laws against such a thing. And Roe v. Wade was 38 years ago. Who’s confused?
@Abigail on Monday, Sep 19, 2011 12:44 PM (EDT)
I am pleasantly shocked! Your post is the only vegetarian view with which I can agree. I am not a vegetarian but I think that your reasoning makes sense.
Intelligence=value seems to be the predominant Darinwian-Nietszchean-ubermenschien envious-of-God position.
I completely reject that position (as I’m sure most religious people do).
I find both pro-choice vegetarianism and pro-life meat-eating to be completely inconsistent positions if one is serious about rejecting intelligence=value….
Because both positions are essentially consistent with intelligence=value. Or if not that, exactly, at least consciousness/potential consciousness=value.
Quoting Abigail above:
“The PETA-crowd’s failure to recognize the dignity of human life should not make Catholics, in reaction, refuse to recognize the value—even if it’s a lower kind of value—of animals’ lives.”
Animals are generally more useful alive than dead. A cow can go on giving milk for years. Her male offspring can grow up to pull plows and do other needful work. Her female offspring can grow up to give milk also.
Another commenter writes:
“There is a good tradition of, for lack of a better term, “holy vegetarianism” in the Church. In fact the Rule of St. Albert (the original Carmelite rule) says monks should not eat meat unless at sea, which seems to be in line with the entire monastic tradition up to that point. I am thinking of doing so myself because I am a slave to the passion of anger, and our Lord said some demons can only be cast out through prayer and fasting. If meat does stir up those passions (and St. Thomas Aquinas has said so as well) then it might be better to abstain entirely for the sake of the Kingdom.”
Compare this also to Abigail’s note that the CCC says that it is beneath human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly. Also consider how in Eden, man did not eat animals, nor did other animals eat other animals. This is seen again in the prophecies in Isaiah (“they shall not kill or harm on all my holy mountain”).
Meat-eating is a condition of fallen man. The ancient Hebrews were commanded ‘thou shalt not kill’—but they were given injunctions to sacrifice animals for sins. The meat of the sacrificed animals was eaten, of course. Jesus Christ, however, came to Himself be the LAST and only needful sacrifice for expiation of sins. There is no more need for animal sacrifice, so our killing of animals for food is simply that, killing… a thing which we were commanded not to do.
In fact it is BECAUSE of our greater value, our greater consciousness and freedom, our being made in the image and likeness of God, that we are commanded not to kill. Animals are allowed to kill. Tigers, wolves. God lets them kill. But he asks us not to. Why? It is because we are not here to live like animals. We are here to realize something higher—something we lost and forgot in Eden. God has made it possible for us again with His sacrifice. Animals don’t need to die in sacrifice anymore, so that we can be freed from our fallen state, cleansed of sin, and live as God meant us to live.
If we can look forward to the Kingdom with the practice of celibacy, why not with the practice of vegetarianism?
Very pro-life catholic vegan. I don’t worship animals or put their welfare above people. I don’t reinterpret the bible to say that God doesn’t want us to eat meat. I’m attempting to be a good steward of the piece of world that I populate. I think we can treat animals with respect and kindness AS WELL AS stand up for human rights, it’s not an either/or situation. Factory farming is a hideous practice that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have spoken against.
Well said, Mary. As a prolife, Catholic vegan I sometimes feel very much the minority. This is sad to me because I feel that these labels are really all part of the same belief. Nice to know I’m not alone. :)
There is no reason to avoid meat. There is nothing immoral about it. Animals are here for our use. People should focus on cruelty to humans. Once that is completely irradicated then people can get upset about treatment of animals if they must.
All of these atheists who rant against the Church and claim various silly things dont have a clue about what the Catholic Church teaches. This Mike McCants guy in particular is very ignorant and IRRATIONAL. Atheism is an irrational position to hold in the first place. Every time Mike McCants responds with one of his “hilarious” comments he further betrays his extreme ignorance of both the True Religion and rational thought.
I am pro-life. I am a part time vegetarian (some days I eat meat, some days I don’t). I do not kill field mice if I can help it, and I saved several earthworms for a fatal death this year. As long as bugs are outside, I even let them live. Even trees have souls (albeit not immortal like ours) while still alive, and talk to them like they were people…sort of.
While I will eat parts of some animals (bacon, beef), there are parts of animals that I will not eat unless very hungry. In Europe nothing goes to waste. While I’m sure deer meat maybe delicious, I’m not sure I would like it enough for a meal-maybe a taste though.
I do not eat fish with bones so all those fishes are safe from me!
“Bizarre. Truly bizarre. The Church’s teaching on “human dignity”? A church that, for 19 centuries supported and traded in human slaves, not even admitting slavery was wrong? A church that for millenia denied equal rights to Jews and women? Gimme a break! This caterwauling on the part of the historically ignorant leads to revisionism of the most callous kind, which is exactly what Jennifer is doing. “
What is even more bizarre is that you make the most ignorant assumptions I had ever heard. Where in Church history did they support and trade in slaves and treat Jews and Women without dignity? Truly bizarre. Truly. What is even more bizarre is that you have not even used sources to support your claims.
@Sheila - So Sheila is your alias today…..same verbiage as in all of your other posts just using a different identity. Don’t you get tired of all of this Catholic bashing about the Jews, women and salves. Please, give us a break already.
I apologize the above comment was for Bob, not Sheila.
“Posted by Brian Westley on Tuesday, Sep 20, 2011 8:39 PM (EDT):““But we have to go by God’s word to settle it.”
Hilarious. Who gets to decide what is truly “God’s word”?
—my reply: You’re kidding right? Ever hear of the bible?”
—MY reply: You’re kidding right? Ever hear of the Koran? The Tanakh? The Bhagavad Gita? The Purvas? The Tibetan Book of the Dead? The Tao Te Ching? The Kojiki? The Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah? The Book of Mormon? Dianetics?
Now let me repeat Mike McCants’ question: Who gets to decide what is truly “God’s word”?
And here’s my own followup question: What do you do when (not if) people DISAGREE?”
Yes, I have heard of the Koran—It is described as a bible, also, is it not?
When people disagree on beliefs, it is best to discuss the differences and the similiarities. However, religions (like the Kabala, Catholics, Buddhists) all have the same goal—to be the best person you can be, to be connected to your God that best way you can (meditation, prayer) and to live your life on earth in the best way to reach the goal of going to heaven, nirvana, the kingdsom, etc. in the afterlife.
God represents himself in different forms to adapt to their cultures. IMO, no religion is better than the other, unless it is not following a “truth” (ex. churches that create their own “personal jesus” like epistiples) or the religion is based on the destruction of life….
Christianity is Truth. It is the fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures. Truth is not based upon someone’s opinion; Truth just is.
@Bob Rodriguez - Being pro-life is synonymous with living a life that is focused on the dignity of the human person. Pro life people are committed Christians. I know many of them in my parish and I don’t think this is a unique situation. We are concerned with the unborn, those in between and those facing the end of their life. We consistently have clothing drives, food drives and collections for victims of natural disasters. We bring Holy Communion to the shut ins and those residing in nursing homes. We work closely with Catholic Charities and the poor in underdeveloped countries to provide food, clothing and shelter. We have volunteers who visit prisons and serve meals in soup kitchens. The list goes on and on.
@Bob Rodriguez - I am beyond the age to adopt and I work full time so fostering would not be an option for me, but I have MANY spiritual children that I have adopted and many adults for that matter. My life is devoted to caring for the spiritual needs of others which is just as important. That is my calling! What say we leave the judging of you and I to Jesus Christ, who is Lord and Savior much to your chagrin. You are filled with hate and that is truly sad because the first attribute necessary to really care about people, all people, is love!
“Posted by Bob Rodriguez on Tuesday, Sep 27, 2011 6:57 AM (EDT)
You seem to be sad, lost and filled with alot of hate. I[m just courious then, what DO YOU do to help the community that is considered out of the COMFORT ZONE? And charitable giving should be done out of the goodness of one’ heart. How can you slam a person that may donate to a food pantry $50.00 worth of canned goods? You mean to tell me you feel the only type of giving to the world is for all of us to roll up our sleeves, jump on a plane to Africa and help to give out bowls of rice to the starving? It’s a nice thought, but it’s not gonna happen. Not everyone is made to do such things. Some people are able to volunteer, some people are not, some people can donate money, some may not, but will donate clothing and the such.
Saying our Lord is a “dead jew on a stick” was insulting, blasphemous, rude, ignorant and racist. You talk the talk in a self-righteous fashion indicating people should adopt, that giving to charities is not enough yet you insult other’s religious beliefs and how they give back to the community?
I suggest you reflect on your comments for you are acting like a lantern without a wick….
Bob is only interested in the shock value of his comments. Is anyone monitoring this blog for content?????
100% ProLife, 100% Roman Catholic in complete agreement with the Pope, 100% Vegetarian…God bless you all..
This atheistic worldview is applied inconsistently all the time. The animal worshippers view man as simply a more evolved animal, and they are all about animal rights. Yet man is the one animal they have no problem with killing, aborting, euthenizing, managing. All the other animals have “rights” and should be allowed to be true to their nature , have their natural habitats (except, for SOME reason they do not see urban areas that they tend to live in as destroyed habitat-that is always someone elses property they want to control. They never seem to advocate re-establishing wolves or grzzlies in cities) but man is not allowed the same rights. Animals eat other animals, but men should not eat animals…why not?? It’s a weird inconsistent moral philosophy (how can it be “immoral” to eat anything when there is no objective morality??)and MUCH more about controlling human behavior and promoting Darwinism than any kind of coherent thought process.
Historical side note ... Adolf Hitler was Pro-Choice and Vegetarian ... he also was an early “Wilderness” advocate having all of the Hummel like hill side Shrines sheltering Crucifixes and Saints adjacent to the old mountain trails and paths surrounding his “Berchtesgaden” Mountain retreat demolished. History is repeating itself as advocates of expunging Religion from the Public Square are increasingly successful. They too are “Wilderness” advocates and have successfully removed the Cross from the California Desert.
I am disappointed in the writer of the article. Here I was reading how she came to value human life, but then began eating meat again. That doesn’t make any sense to me. I am a Catholic and I am vegan. We should uphold the sanctity of ALL life. No abortion, no embryonic stem cell research, no death penalty. We are to take care of the poor and those that are more helpless than ourselves. I think that should also extend to animals. I would like to see more people against animal testing, animal abuse and torture… I cannot in good conscience ever eat an animal again. I like what someone said above, that Jesus was not a bloody butcher. Could you imagine St. Francis of Assisi slaughtering one of his animal friends?
There is absolutely nothing immoral about doing animal testing or eating meat. It is in no way against the Faith. Animals were put here for our use. Doing testing to try possible medical treatments and things like that certainly fals in that category. Torturing for the sake of torturing is just plain sick. However slaughtering animals for food is not torture. It is what animals are here for. I butcher deer, turkeys and chickens. It is not a pleasureable thing but it puts food on the table. There is nothing wrong with this. It is wrong to equate animal life with human life. We have reason and an immortal soul. The animals do not. They are just animals.
“
Posted by Sam on Friday, Oct 7, 2011 12:13 AM (EDT):There is absolutely nothing immoral about doing animal testing or eating meat. It is in no way against the Faith. Animals were put here for our use. Doing testing to try possible medical treatments and things like that certainly fals in that category. Torturing for the sake of torturing is just plain sick. However slaughtering animals for food is not torture. It is what animals are here for. I butcher deer, turkeys and chickens. It is not a pleasureable thing but it puts food on the table. There is nothing wrong with this. It is wrong to equate animal life with human life. We have reason and an immortal soul. The animals do not. They are just animals.”
—my reply: There is a humane and not a humane way to “put food on the table”...Many animals are put in very horrific circumstances by large meat companies. Though I think PETA is a bit extreme with their campaigns, just look at their sites at what is done to these poor animals.
These days, with technology, there is hardly any need to test things out such as cosmetics on animals. There are also many synthetics out there to use for clothing vs. leather, etc.
Animals are not just animals. All the dogs I have had in my life had their own personalities and they have feelings. Most days, I’m glad to have my dog to greet me after a crummy day at work having to deal with evil humans—Pets have unconditional love. They just want to be petted, loved, have the simple nessessaties provided for them like food and water and they are happy.
You can go eat your steak and I’ll have my veggie burger. It’s your choice and mine, but please research food companies and rethink your stance that animals have no souls—for they do. The only difference is that we have free will and animals do not.
Sorry, but animals don’t feel love the way human beings do since they do not have reason and free will. Your pet wants to be cared for and then they are happy but they do not feel happiness or sadness or any other such human emotion for or with you. To say this is just projecting our own feelings onto them.
As for souls, they have an animal soul that is what makes them a living being. There isare different levels of souls based on whether it is a person, animal or plant. However they do not have soiuls that are in anyway close to that of a human being. They do not, I repeat, do not have immortal souls endowed with reason or free will. In philosophy this is explained very well. You can read what Aristotle has to on the topic in his book “De Anima.”
Again, I am not condoning mistreatment but using animals for food, medical testing, etc is not mistreatment.
@Sam - I disagree with your statement that animals do not feel happiness or sadness for me or with me. I have a cat who totally loves me. I know she loves me because of how she reacts and interacts with me. Animals absolutely love and they know when they are loved. Unlike humans, they also love us unconditionally.
Sorry but that is incorrect. I too love cats but I know that they dont have love. Of course they react in a loving way they are being well cared for and like the attention. But love properly speaking requires a choice and animals do not have the intellect or free will to make this choice. Once again we are projecting our own feelings on to them. I can understand loving one’s pet but people today are humanizing them too much and forgetting that they are “just animals.” Love and the other human emotionals cannot be felt by those who are not human. We can want them to love us all we want but this does not it so. Animals act on instinct not on relfection and feelings.
@Sam - I think we can agree to disagree.
Love requires a choice and making a choice requires intellect and free will. Again I dont dislike animals but we can’t put them at the level of people. Today I think many people are having fewer children and instead are lavishing love and affection on animals. A child can love you back. It seems that you are putting animal love above human love and saying that they can love you better. Again read the philosophy behind the issue. Aristotle explains it very well.
@Sam - Where did I say I was putting animal love above human love? When an animal loves you it is responding on an emotional level to a human being’s kindness to them and caring for them. We need not analyze this to death. All living creatures respond to kindness and respond in kind. I think St. Francis of Assisi knew all about this since he was able to relate to God’s creatures, and they to him.
I am a pro-life vegetarian! But I think every one has their own reason! I appreciate you!
http://www.veglov.com
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.