Father Rutler just rocks.
Feel the love.
Not By Bread Alone. :D
What is the New Testament and why is it important to Christians? J.K.
Finally, an issue I can really sink my teeth into!
Vegetarians eh? We are what we eat
I have not read Mr. Paden's piece, and am unfamiliar with his society. I do admit that there are quite a few vegetarian wackos out there, equating animals with humans. That is wrong.
That said, even though there is no law against eating meat, there's also no law against having a diet consisting entirely of cheese doodles and Mountain Dew. But just because something is allowed, doesn't mean it's the best way. Remember, our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and we are to treat them with the care that which God took to make us in the first place.
In my study, I've found eating a sensible vegetarian diet to be the easiest, most natural way to honor my body, a gift from God. It's been statistically proven that it can help you lose weight and defeat cancer before it starts, getting the vitamins we need to survive and a savory selection of delicious choices before you. That it shows mercy upon animals, especially those of which who suffer from the hands the agri-farming industry, is a perk.
Even if you think that we as humans have every right to raise animals in any matter we want, would you really want to eat animals that have been raised in deplorable conditions, such as confining them into small cages in darkened warehouses, mutilated, drugged, with dung all over them? Seriously?
If you must eat meat, stay away from mass-marketed brands and move towards cage-free chickens or organic beef. Do it for your health first, and the animals' livelihood second.
Nick
Mark, you need to warn us when you post something that funny! I might have damaged my monitor with coffee spray.
I had to print this one off. I think I'll frame it. Or, maybe I'll send it to a couple of weak litergists I know...
I had no idea that that dry-looking Fr. Rutler, as seen on EWTN, was such a riot.
y daughter says Father Rutler's ripping off the band "Reel Big Fish".........Which radio station is he tuned into?
ROTFL. This is a classic!
Yep. Coffee spray on the keyboard AND monitor! What a rousing climax from our Rev. Rutler. I hadn't gotten around to reading the letters section yet (I skipped right to the most excellent shredding of the Da Vinci Code book). I'm gonna have to share this one around.
Was not St. Francis of Assisi a vegetarian? I suppose quite a few ascetic types in the history of the Catholic Church were vegetarians. They were "vegetarians" before the pseudo-"enlightened" of the PETA-type.
Best. Closing line. Ever.
Heck, as Brother Maynard well knows, God even allowed St. Attila and the people to eat fruit bats, sloths, and orangutans! (Book of Armaments, 2:9-21)
Cows, pigs, and chickens wouldn't exist if they weren't tasty. Ergo, being a carnivore is preventing extinction of these species and is actually quite pro-life--i.e. breeding more of these tasty animals.
I can't think God is a member of PETA, after a millenia of Temple barbecues.
Barrister: Ditto. Maybe I'll actually have to start reading it from beginning to end. Sandra Miesel's piece was very good though (which is fun to say in a venue she may actually read) (hope I didn't misspell "Miesel").
Rock on, Fr. Rutler!
As a Christian (soon to be Catholic) vegetarian, I'd concur with the comment above that equating animals and humans is wrong. But I also think causing unnecessary pain and harm to animals, which unlike bean plants have a central nervous system, is wrong. Since the human diet does not require meat (see the definitive American Dietetic Association position paper on this point), if there's other food around, any meat eating is pretty much causing unnecessary suffering. So I don't do it.
Yes, there are passages of Scripture affirming the permissability of eating meat. But the opening chapters of Genesis also define God's intended diet for us as vegetarian. Only in the fallen world do we eat meat - our hard hearts again? There's also that coming world where the lion lays down with the lamb. And note that Christ did not give his body and blood to us as the lamb at that last Passover meal, despite the obvious comparisons, but as bread and wine.
So saying eating meat is permissible isn't the same as saying it's ideal or good. Also see the ADA paper on how meat-based vs. vegetarian diets affect human health, for further evidence that God's original plan is still the best one.
I understand that Matthew Scully's offers a Christian (and conservative) perspective on this. Haven't read it yet. And I don't make a habit of vegetarian evangelism, either: I'm just resonding to the jubilant mockery here. There's absolutely nothing about the Christian faith which requires one to be a meat eater, and not all vegetarians choose that diet for stupid reasons. It's easy to pick on the straw men, though.
Sorry: Matthew Scully's book, I mean. It's called "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." It's been given favorable coverage on National Review and also in a column by Chuck Colson.
Incidentally, for the definition of an idiot vegetarian, see the next entry about Dennis Kucinich, who suddenly finds unborn children unworthy of "peace" but shows no signs of backing away from his cow, pig, chicken and, presumably, weasel constituencies.
Dear Nick and Kyle,
I have absolutely no problem with anyone being a vegetarian for health reasons. There are many benefits. And Nick is absolutely right that you should steer far clear of any "mass-market" meats. Besides being inhumane to the animals, they're also filled with hormones and all sorts of other nasty things that do terrible things to your bodies, especially young girls.
But eating meat is not a sin.
I am a tremendous admirer of Fr. Rutler but his spin on Genesis is wrong. It wasn't until the fall and expulsion from Eden that humans were given permission to eat meat, and only after God had put the "fear and dread" of man into them. That necessarily implies that at one time man and nature were intended to live in harmony. The fall also disrupted the integrity of the natural world, but the original intent of Genesis was a vegetarian milieu.
Having said that, I grew up eating meat like everyone else. The New Testament states that the Kingdom of God is not about "eating and drinking" so it's one of those things we have a choice about.
I became vegetarian several years ago because (1) after my husband's open-heart surgery (PARTLY caused by years of a heavy-meat diet that had raised his cholesterol and blood pressure sky-high, but that wasn't the only factor) in order to help him eat a more healthy diet and (2) in our day and age I agree with the National Catholic Rural Life Conference that eating IS a moral act. The way agribusiness raises and slaughters animals is a disgrace.
Christianity grew up in a more urban environment. The Old Testament and Judaism have always seen our treatment of animals as a matter of justice. It's not surprising that Jewish involvement in environmental and animal welfare issues is much more widespread than that of Christians, in general.
I have absolutely NO authority on this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that in the new Heavens and Earth that Christ will bring about at the last trump somehow the innocence of Eden will somehow reemerge.
A brother-in-law of mine comments:
"If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?"
I have absolutely NO authority on this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that in the new Heavens and Earth that Christ will bring about at the last trump somehow the innocence of Eden will somehow reemerge.
How about "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food," but God will do away with both the one and the other.
Which kind of implies that even plants won't have much to worry about in Heaven. O
Romans 14 everybody. Do what you do to the glory of God and don't bind your brother's conscience where the Church doesn't. Simple as that.
Hi Mark...
You wrote: "Eating meat is not a sin."
If you read the original letter to the editor, you'll find that Fr. Rutler actually misread his piece. (I've since read it). Not once does he equate meat-eating as a sinful act. But he does equate what the agri-farming industry is doing as sinful.
The question being, is eating the meat put out by the agri-farming industry a sin? A sticky issue, and ignorance was bliss for me.
Also, you read over and again of the amount of grains and water it takes to create one pound of beef. But it is a staggering amount. I don't have my books on me, but there are many books on the subject, including books from John Robbins. How many more people can be fed from a diet that promotes vegetarian eating than the massive waste of resources? How can saying any differently be remotely considered "pro-life"?
Lastly, and I hate to nitpick... but Fr. Rutler does not, (as two folks have already suggested here) "rock". Fr. Rutler opposes rock music in any form, as he has indicated in numerous occassions that he subscribes to the "beat is evil" theory. Fr. Rutler polkas, or he classicals, but he does NOT rock.
Fr. Rutler is an outstanding priest, and I would have to accept that this letter was hastily written by a person who occassionally draws his inspiration and inept logic to that of late-night stand-up comics.
But no... eating meat is not a sin.
Nick
Mark S. (no, the other one): You may think whatever you like about my motives, which are only partly related to health. It's not your opinion which counts.
And it's not my call what's a sin or isn't, but from a biblical standpoint you are clearly on solid ground to say eating meat is not sin. I said as much. However, even granting that, it does not follow that there is no moral case to be made for being a vegetarian. Human actions reflect choice, and one choice can be better than another without either choice being inherently sinful.
For instance, one may take $100 and blow it in a poker game. If the family is cared for and you have otherwise been generous in your life, it's not a sin. However, if the guy instead used the $100 to buy a couple of bags of groceries for a food shelf, that would be a more virtuous action. There is a moral difference even though neither action is sin.
In the same way, choosing to be a vegetarian is demonstrably more compassionate and more respectful of God's gifts (creation in an environmental sense, the animals themselves and our own personal health) than eating meat is, even if eating meet is not in itself sinful.
John P,
Of course there have been instances of cannibalism in various cultures, so "meat" is something all us mammalian types seem to have in common!
(Cont.) On the other hand, following is a formulation of the argument that eating meat in modern circumstances is morally wrong. (One can argue that in biblical times, availability of other foods to provide adequate nutrition was not a given.)
1. It is morally wrong to cause unnecessary suffering and death in animals, even if they do not have rights equivalent to those of humans.
2. With the possible exception of rare health problems, meat is unnecessary for human diets in circumstances where varied and abundant sources of vegetative foods are available. In American culture, such circumstances are the norm.
3. Since all common methods of procuring meat for human diets directly cause animal suffering and death, diets for Americans which include meat do in most circumstances cause unnecessary suffering and death in animals.
4. Therefore, for the typical American, including meat in one's diet is morally wrong.
kyle wrote: "Mark S. (no, the other one): You may think whatever you like about my motives, which are only partly related to health. It's not your opinion which counts."
Calm down, Kyle. Go back and re-read my post. I was actually agreeing with you. Take a chill pill.
.
.
This is another instance where two viable options are discussed and insofar as the merits are debated it's an interesting discussion, but when either side labels the other as sinful we get beyond the line. Let's be careful.
I do have a question though: If being vegetarian was God's intended purpose and we eat meat only because of the Fall and we should avoid it as much as possible, should we also avoid labouring? If not, why the difference? Just curious.
Last comment was from me. My computer for some reason forgot my name. I hope my wife doesn't!
Mark S.: That came out a little harsher than I meant it. Sorry.
Anon: Regarding avoiding labor, the obvious answer is that one is up to us, the other isn't. But you're comparing apples and oranges. There were many consequences of the fall, and not all of them compare directly. I'm not a good enough swimmer (yet) to venture into the deep theological waters of how evil in the natural world derives from sin and what relationship that bears to punishment, but I'd point you toward a different analogy. Divorce was clearly not part of God's plan and came about because of the Fall. In the Old Testament law, divorce was permitted. But Jesus came and said that was so only because of hardened human hearts, and that we should have a higher standard. It's true Jesus never said that about eating animals, but as I mentioned earlier, there are reasons to think that folks in ancient Palestine eating meat and people in America in 2003 eating meat are not equivalent morally.
Oops. Not Anon, Roberto.
Or, Roberto, another way of looking at it is the reverse: We already work at reducing many of the evils that came from the Fall, including labor pains (epidurals) and toiling at the soil (tractors). And we're all supposed to fight the sin in our lives, which comes to us through the Fall. I don't see the fact that it's a consequence of the Fall as a reason not to reduce the evils of unneeded pain and suffering among animals when we eat meat when it is within our power to do so.
How PC is kyle.
All killing of animals for human consumption is done in a painles manner. What a huge issue this is being made, when all I want is a good steak, or lambs fry and bacon with some spuds, broccoli and maybe a poached egg. Don't the lettuce leaves scream when we pull them from the plant?
Just a small nit to pick about labor pains. The original word describing what women would undergo was the same work decribing what men would: Hard work. Which is why both are called labor. Pain is the specific decriber of birth labor but I can assure you that the pain of labor is merely the pain of work crammed into much fewer hours. And even with the epidural, labor is not easy.
Mark S. wrote
"Besides being inhumane to the animals, they're also filled with hormones and all sorts of other nasty things that do terrible things to your bodies, especially young girls."
This view seems to be "folk wisdom" among some, but in fact no scientifically controlled study has ever shown any effects on humans from consuming meat from animals that have been fed growth hormones. It's not surprising, considering how hormones actually work inside a living organism.
My family are Thomistic vegetarians: we don't usually eat meat, on the very basic Thomistic principle that one must never destroy a greater good for the sake of a lesser one. We eat meat when reasons of greater good arise, like health or charity.
A human's health is a greater good than an animal's life, so that's a good reason to destroy an animal. But a human's transitory gustatory pleasure--especially since he can get such pleasure elsewhere--isn't a greater good than the life of a conscious, living being (even one not made in God's image).
Being Thomistic vegetarians is awfully hard on us--it makes us neither fish nor fowl, you see (um...neither tahini nor tofu?). We revile PETA, and devout Catholics revile us.
Kyle, you make a lot of sense to me--drop me a private email, if you would.
Jonathan Sadow wrote:
"but in fact no scientifically controlled study has ever shown any effects on humans from consuming meat from animals that have been fed growth hormones."
Have you read the European Union's Independent Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures? "The hormone 17 beta-oestradiol (widely used in U.S. beef production) has to be considered as a complete carcinogen. It exerts both tumor initiating and tumor promoting effects. In plain language this means that even small addittional doses of residues of this hormone in meat, arising from its use as a growth promoter in cattle, has an inherent risk of causing cancer" -"European Scientists Say U.S. Beef Unsafe" Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 4, 1999, A-8. So adamant are the Europeans on this issue that they banned hormone-treated meat within European countries, and the U.S. complained to the World Trade Organization, which in effect ruled that the European Union was required to pay the U.S. $150 million per year as compensation for lost profit. To the European Union, they are actually willing to pay that amount to the U.S. than allow U.S. beef to cross their borders.
Much of this was taken from John Robbins' "The Food Revolution" (2001). The book is loaded with footnotes, and is meticulously researched. Folks who wish to be informed about the real issues regarding food, instead of ganging up on strawmen (listening Fr. Rutler?) ought to read it.
Nick
Jonathan Sadow wrote:
"but in fact no scientifically controlled study has ever shown any effects on humans from consuming meat from animals that have been fed growth hormones."
I was going to respond, but Nick beat me to it. He's right.
I will add to it though:
Most American beef is chocked full of hormones. Scientific studies have shown that since this practice was introduced, American girls are entering puberty at a much earlier age than in previous generations --- sometimes as young as 8 or 9.
In European countries where such hormones are banned, girls are entering puberty at the same age they always have.
Has science proven that these beef hormones are a cause? No. But it is an AWFULLY big smoking gun, and most general practicioners these days believe that the early puberty rates are due to the hormones in beef (and other animal products as well, including milk).
------------------------------
Kyle wrote: "Mark S.: That came out a little harsher than I meant it. Sorry."
Hey! No worries. Just didn't want you to misunderstand what I meant.
Don wrote: "All killing of animals for human consumption is done in a painles manner."
That is so not true.
It has been very well documented that in many slaughterhouses, animals are often skinned while still alive. I've seen the video. Not a pretty sight.
Besides the method of killing, most animals bred for consumption are raised in very inhumane conditions. You should visit a commercial chicken farm. It will steer you forever away from McNuggets. Most dairies I've been to are little better.
But . . .
Let me stress I mean large-scale corporate farms.
I'm not a vegetarian, although I have sworn off pork after finding out all the nasty stuff living in the meat. I eat meat.
But I have become very careful about where the meat I eat comes from.
If you can find any small-scale, independent farms in your area, that is, by far, the best place to purchase any of your food, but most especially things like beef, milk, and poultry. Most small farmers are pretty responsible about this sort of stuff.
But if that option isn't available for you, at the very least you should check and buy the meats and dairy products to which no hormones have been added. You'll pay a bit more, but you and your family will be healthier, and you'll be helping to support independently owned farmers.
The corporatization of our economy is killing not only our society, but our bodies.
I just want to say that I like what Abigail wrote. I think I fall into that category--the Thomistic approach--without realizing that we in fact were doing that.
Vegetarianism is new for us, and we still have meat once a week. If so, either organic free beef, or cage free chicken/eggs, or Alaskan (not farm-raised) salmon. Most of the time it would be in the context of a major family gathering, and us being vegetarians would be more of a stress-inducer than a time for improving fellowship.
The rest of the week... wow. So many more food choices than people would take for granted. It's amazing how God's very creation, even in the produce aisle, is loaded with treasures. Food of every stripe, created by God. Each week, something new. All of it is affordable, healthy, and tastes fantastic. I've lost weight, and yet I don't feel like I've deprived myself--if anything, I've spoiled myself in the riches of God's creation.
Nick
You don't wanna eat meat? Fine. But as soon as you tell me I can't wear fur, the gloves come off.
Nick wrote:
Also, you read over and again of the amount of grains and water it takes to create one pound of beef. But it is a staggering amount. I don't have my books on me, but there are many books on the subject, including books from John Robbins. How many more people can be fed from a diet that promotes vegetarian eating than the massive waste of resources? How can saying any differently be remotely considered "pro-life"?
Nick: PLENTY of food is produced to feed every person on the planet, already, no exceptions. Period. The problem is getting the food to the folks who need it: the inherent problem of gangs / dictators taking food, depressing local farming markets by introducing free, imported food into them, etc. No one should feel constrained by the grain uses of cattle, at least not for a long, long while.
As for the comments by someone on hormones in meat: it's just not true that European girls don't enter puberty at the same time as US girls. Where'd you get that fact from? It's related to diet and health, not beef hormones. I guarantee you that the many youthful, vegetarian girls who frequent the farmer's market in my town (Ithaca, NY) are equally pubescent. It's a rough, non-scientific measure, but you didn't give any evidence aside from quoting a nervous EU document regarding the carcinogenic nature of a hormone that is NOT demonstrated to be present in a dangerous dose in the processed, consumed meat. The dose makes the poison, as any honest public health expert will tell you -- do you have any concept of the number of small doses of carcinogens we are all exposed to constantly? It's huge. Indectectibly small doeses are NOT ones to be concerned about. Really, really, really and truly.
All things in moderation! BTW, what are eggs considered? They certainly don't feel the pain but are pretty nasty on certain heart conditions.
Mark Wyman wrote: "...it's just not true that European girls don't enter puberty at the same time as US girls. Where'd you get that fact from?"
All over the place. Just for a real quick summarial article, check out http://www.organicconsumers.org/
...ormoncancer.cfm
There's probably more information than you can read in a day at: http://www.useu.be/Categories/Be...mones/
Index.htm
The European Union's findings are at http://www.eurunion.org/news/pre...002/
2002020.htm
The BBC has a short article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...nomy/
342310.stm
I could keep quoting sources all afternoon. There are lots of books out on the subject (Fast Food Nation perhaps being the most famous), and our family doctor says the same thing.
I think it's safe to say that this thread is starting to wear it's welcome. Everything that needs to be said has been said or alluded to, even though many people will not want to read the aforementioned books ("Dominion","Fast Food Nation", "The Food Revolution") to discover for themselves that there is a Catholic argument against agri-farming industry, and believing that doesn't make you a PETA spokesperson.
It also needs to be reiterated that this is not a case where four vegetarians/almost-vegetarians got on a board and started pushing their agenda against everybody's good taste. Fr. Rutler wrote a letter based on his misreading of a very fair, thoughtful letter... one of which he equated the "evil" in "evil" agri-farming industries, to "evil" as in "eating meat."
That he wrote an entire letter to disprove this claim, errant as it was, only to end it on a good joke no less exonerates him for poor logic. That he has written many books and articles with fantastic moral theology does not give him a free pass to fail in even this one area. And yet Mark Shea calls him a great reader, many comments say he "rocks", and people who have safe assumptions that being vegetarian means being a fanatic are encouraged to think that way.
Please understand how I see it. Replace "vegetarianism" with "Catholicism", "Fr. Rutler" with "Hank Hannegraaf", and "Dominion" or "Fast Food Nation" with "Catholicism and Fundamentalism"--and what you've got is a Protestant board that tolerates Catholics, but not so much that they let one anti-Catholic blurb cut thru after a while.
The real issue: Fr. Rutler has committed friendly fire, yet he has been celebrated because of his wit. And while he is entitled to his own opinion, we are not entitled to congratulate him for straw-man arguments, false associations, and ad hominum allegations, even at the expense of things we can agree upon. Folks, we're better than this.
Nick
Nick Alexander and Mark S. make an unfortunately common mistake when citing sources for their belief that bovine growth hormones are influencing female puberty ages. All the sources they cite are either political documents or from various advocacy groups. They are not scientific studies which have been peer-reviewed.
The best resource I can point to you on the Web about this issue is a fact sheet from Cornell University's Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State (http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/FactSheet/Diet/
fs37.hormones.cfm). It states that there is no conclusive evidence of any effect of hormones on puberty ages (as Mark Wyman alluded to previously, it's believed earlier menarche for girls is most likely caused by better early nutrition). The entire document itself is a good read, dealing with all aspects of hormones in food, and unlike the other sources cited, is based upon a thorough review of the relevant scientific literature.
As a (sometimes) science educator, I must say in general that one must, as in the case with apologetics, be discerning in one's sources. You should be sure of getting your scientific information from a source that doesn't cherry-pick convenient information while leaving the more inconvenient facts aside. Otherwise, it's like learning Catholic theology from James White or Eric Svendsen.
Nick Alexander wrote: "...that there is a Catholic argument against agri-farming industry, and believing that doesn't make you a PETA spokesperson."
If G.K. Chesterton were alive today, he'd be railing against the American agri-business industry.
Wendell Berry, perhaps one of the closest things to a Distributivist writing today, has lots to say about the modern agri-business industry.
Jonathan Sadow wrote: "All the sources they cite are either political documents or from various advocacy groups. They are not scientific studies which have been peer-reviewed."
Again, that's just not true. The majority of Western countries -- Canada and Europe foremost among them -- have conducted scientific studies about growth hormones in our food, and they have banned them with good reason.
It's a shame that in this country we have become some polarized and reactionary in our thinking. Yes, most of the people in the US opposed to growth hormones in our food tend toward the liberal side of politics, but that does not in itself make their opinions on the agri-business industry wrong. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Commenting by HaloScan
