As 1.5 million people cheered, Pope John Paul II was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican on Sunday. The beatification, declaring Pope John Paul II as holy, is a major step toward his likely sainthood.
His Holiness had great compassion for animals, and traveled to Assisi, the birthplace of St. Francis, patron saint of animals, to speak on their behalf. He declared that animals "possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren."
A wonderful way for Catholics to honor the life of Pope John Paul II is to live with respect for animals as he requested, remembering that they are, in the words of His Holiness, "as near to God as men are."
Follow Bruce Friedrich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brucegfriedrich
Pope John Paul II Says Animals Have Souls
Pope Benedict XVI Continues Tradition of Papal Concern for Animals ...
Do animals have emotions? - Times Online
Poles Travel to Rome for John Paul Beatification - ABC News
Pope John Paul to Be Beatified May 1
Vatican moves to beatify John Paul II in May - Los Angeles Times
Compassion for animals leads naturally to vegetarianism, as I discuss in this Advent reflection:
http://tinyurl.com/32wpd2e
Or as Fr. John Dear (http://www.fatherjohndear.org/) writes in his pamphlet, “Christianity and Vegetarianism: Pursuing the Nonviolence of Jesus”:
“Vegetarianism proves that we’re serious about our belief in compassion and justice, that we’re mindful of our commitment, day in and day out, every time we eat. We are reminded of our belief in mercy, and we remind others. We begin to live the nonviolent vision, right here and now….
Many Christians who agree that harming a dog or cat is wrong think nothing of harming cows, pigs, chickens, fish and other creatures. We need to understand that if we’re eating meat, we are paying people to be cruel to animals. For the simple reasons that all animals are creatures beloved by God and that God created them with a capacity for pain and suffering, we should adopt a vegetarian diet…
I am convinced that society will look back on human arrogance and cruelty toward other animals with the same horror and disbelief that we presently reserve for atrocities committed against human beings….”
In fact, the arguments for all five of these is stronger than the argument for eating meat (much Biblical support, little or no Biblical condemnation), since God’s ideal is explicitly presented in the Bible as vegetarian: In Genesis, God's command in 1:29 is a vegetarian diet (and even the carnivores are vegetarians in the Garden of Eden); only after the flood (Gen 9) is permission given to eat meat (and read all of Genesis 9—it is not exactly humanity’s finest hour; God is angry—it’s an anti-Garden vision that is described. BTW, a different section of Genesis 9 was also used to justify slavery for centuries and centuries. The prophetic visions of the eschaton indicate God’s plan for a return to Garden of Eden conditions, so in the eschaton, even the carnivorou¬s animals go back to vegetarian¬ism. The fact that the Garden and eschaton (the two indications of God’s vision of a perfect world) are vegetarian represents very strong Biblical support for vegetarianism. You can’t even find similarly strong support for abolition of slavery, equality for women, etc.
Dr. Richard Dawkins, the foremost Darwin scholar alive, has consistently challenged what he calls human "speciesist arrogance," this idea that we are so important that even eating animals’ bodies is acceptable. Both Dawkins and linguist and political scientist Noam Chomsky have suggested that concern for animals is likely to be the next great moral battle.
Thanks for the spirited discussion!
Bruce
I think in recent years especially, we've seen what can come of people who are convinced they know what God "really means".
If you are going to pick and choose from the Bible by the way, then if you are wearing poly-cotton right now, expect someone to kill you. Look up Leviticus. It's full of rape, slavery, homophobia.
E.g., I firmly believe that a sexually active gay person can be a Christian. But the portions of the Bible that condemn homosexuality have to be dealt with logically and shown to be irrelevant, not just dismissed. If you're a Christian, and something's in the Bible, you can't just throw it out because you don't like it, and it's a real hyper-über-oversimplification to say flatly that the Bible is a "pro-gay" document, just because you want it to be.
Similarly, one can make a case for Christian vegetarianism, especially when the diet is adopted as a protest against the cruelty of modern-day factory farming. But to simply dismiss, as Bruce does, all the parts of the Bible which approve of meat-eating, and to claim that the Bible somehow "really" advocates vegetarianism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and to cherry-pick through the Catechism to find support for his views, relying on its authority while simultaneously questioning its authority, is just plain intellectually dishonest.
who has decreed that animals have the right not to be used as property?
How we view and treat animals reflects and affects our relationship with their Creator, God (who has compassion on all of His animals).
The Church needs to teach actively by word and deed - with vegan dinners (plant-based food which God created us to have) -- it would help the starving people in the world, the environment, the billions of animals and of course our own bodies (the temple of the Holy Spirit). Sadly, God's leaders are afraid - and shoud not be afraid as Pope Benedict XVI keeps reminding us.
Jan, God's Creatures Ministry
In the Christian bible, Jesus was born in a manger, ate meat, cooked meat, helped people catch more meat, and fed meat to the masses! And Jesus certainly never commanded anyone not to eat meat, so apparently your version of Christianity has nothing to do with Christ.
And in the Christian bible, from the very beginning, God praised meat. He liked the smell of the meat that Noah cooked for him as an offering so much that it moved him to promise never to flood the earth again (Gen 8.20)
In Genesis 18.8, God sat down and ate a steak, veal as a matter of fact, that was accompanied by milk and cheese curds!
And just in case it wasn't clear enough, in Gen 9.3, God made asserted his approval of meat eating in no uncertain terms:
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you, and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."
This is very much akin to the strategy utilized by secular vegan activist groups - show videos of the worst of the worst abuses of modern-day industrialized animal farming, and then leave the viewer with the message, "This is why millions of compassionate people have chosen to leave meat off their plate, for good".
In both cases, care is taken to give the impression that ALL (not just most) meat, eggs, and dairy products are produced in cruel factory conditions, since most people - if told about humane alternatives - would choose them, over shunning animal products altogether, and would reject the notion that the use of animals for food, clothing, etc. is just wrong plain and simple.
See, for example, the FAQ section of the JesusVeg website. There is consistently an immediate leap from discussing the mercy of God, to talking about factory farming:
http://www.jesusveg.com/qow10398.html
If you want to see a vegan's rhetoric twist itself into a pretzel, point out that the only meat, eggs, and dairy you eat are of the humanely raised sort, and that you oppose factory farming just as much as he or she does.
You see, Bruce sort of "cherry picks" from the Catechism. He quite accurately points out that the Catechism (which is basically a summary of doctrine as well as a teaching tool) states that "It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly". The problem is, he ignores another part of the very same section, which reads: "God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing".
So I'm afraid Bruce has really painted himself into a corner. He says that if you're not a vegetarian, you don't take the Catechism seriously. But by his own logic, then, the Catechism doesn't take itself seriously, since it approves of the use of animals for food. Perhaps he takes a quasi-teleological view that there is a dynamic "trajectory of justice" at work here, but he hasn't developed that argument sufficiently to be at all convincing. And even if he tried, via the utilitarian "least harm" principle, it still wouldn't wash.
The basic flaw from which Bruce's logical errors flow is the syncretistic attempt to reconcile Catholicism with veganism, but accommodation can be carried only just so far.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/an-advent-reflection-on-g_b_788795.html
Cheers,
Bruce
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/humane-meat-a-contradicti_b_58547.html
Thanks for weighing in,
Bruce
Being kind to meat animals means providing them with a quick and painless death. I use a gun to kill (goat) kids and lambs, putting a bowl of corn down, then waiting until they start eating before shooting them between the ears. This is not cruel. They die thinking they got a treat. I've also seen videos of lambs killed according to kosher and halal law. The jugular vein (not the throat) is cut so fast they lose consciousness within a second or two. In my opinion, this isn't cruel as long as the animal isn't hung upside down before the knife is used. (While that method may be the among kosher and halal meat packers, there are other ways to do it.)
I also know that hundreds, maybe even thousands of animals are killed when I plow my vegetable gardens. Replacing the animals I raise for food with larger vegetable gardens would cause more animlas to die. In my opinion, those deaths are needless since they can be prevented by raising some animals for food.
That said, the Bible clearly regards humans as stewards of creation, and "dominion" does not equal unalloyed "domination", whether of animals or any other of Earth's resources. So to oppose the brutality of factory farming, or any other examples of abusive treatment of animals, is clearly a Christian obligation; but to go further than that and renounce the use of animals for any human purpose is nowhere mandated by Catholic theology, nor can such a belief be extrapolated from even the most mentally gymnastic interpretation of the Catechism or Scripture.
On the other hand,maybe that's being too paranoid. Maybe someone just screwed up.
Parts of Matthew particularly emphasize the fact that we don't know the mind of God, and shouldn't pretend to, so we must just follow our hearts the best we can, without assuming that we know best for all. I think that offers a very good lesson for someone like Bruce, who claims that not only does he know what's best for him, but that he knows what's best for everyone else as well, and that anyone who disagrees with him is lacking morals and compassion, when really, we just disagree.
In Genesis, God's command in 1:29 is a vegetarian diet; only after the Fall (Gen 9) is permission given to eat meat. According to the prophetic visions of the eschaton, even the carnivorous animals go back to vegetarianism. Since I've pointed this out before, I'm not sure why you keep asserting no Biblical support for vegetarianism--since God's ideal is clearly vegetarian. In fact, there is better Biblical support for vegetarianism than there is for abolition of slavery.
Also, I don't think you can find me saying that someone who disagrees with me lacks morals or compassion; I certainly don't think that. I do think that eating meat is immoral, but I also know that some disagree with me.
Cheers,
Bruce
What do you think is missing?
Bruce
grumpyfarmer Commented 1 hour ago
"Article appears a little shorter than it was a few days ago."
I was also surprised by how short this piece was until it was brought to my attention that Bruce had condensed it after he was taken to task for some of his claims. Anyway you slice it, that's just wrong.
I agree that it would have been wrong to have changed it...
Bruce
Cheers,
Bruce
Cheers,
Bruce
His Holiness JPII did in fact say this. Of course, the Pope is not infallible in all his statements, so the fact that he said it doesn't make it doctrinal. Thanks for whatever attention you can draw to His Holiness' statement on national radio.
Regardless, abusing and killing animals unnecessarily--whether they have souls or not--violates the Catechism. So unless you're someplace where you literally can't eat a vegan diet, you're violating the Catechism every time you eat meat. Please discuss this on the radio too.
Cheers,
Bruce
"The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation."
"God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives."
"It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
killing an animal for food is not a violation of Catechism
you're confusing animal abolitionism with Catholicism, two very different religions
~ Albert Schweitzer
"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."
~ St. Francis of Assisi
"An argument against human chattel slavery:
99.999% of our uses of human slaves are unnecessary by any coherent concept of the word necessary. 99% of our uses of human chattel slaves harm them. Unnecessary harm is morally wrong. Therefore, 99% of our uses of human slaves are morally wrong.
The same argument against nonhuman chattel slavery:
99.999% of our uses of animals are unnecessary by any coherent concept of the word necessary. 99% of our uses of animals harm them. Unnecessary harm is morally wrong. Therefore, 99% of our uses of animals are morally wrong.
All of the arguments for animal use can be applied with equal force and cogency to the use of human chattel slaves. When we defend animal use, we necessarily defend human chattel slavery.
Human chattel slavery benefited many people greatly throughout human history, but 99.999% of it was not necessary; therefore morally wrong. The exact same argument holds for animal use.
Go vegan. " --- Dan Cudahy
It's sad but funny that despite all that, Bruce still fails to recognize that eating meat does not mean that someone doesn't have compassion for animals.
It seems to me that His Holiness was a product of his generation. The Catholic Catechism, which was revised under his watch, says explicitly that "It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly." For all of us who don't have to eat meat to survive, taking the Catechism seriously requires a vegetarian diet. His Holiness wasn't there yet, but he was moving in the right direction.
Thanks for your comment!
Bruce
Biblical support for animal farming is not open for debate, because there are a mountain of passages in the bible that are unquestionably for it, and not a word against it. In fact, in the oldest book of the bible, Job, God shows his love for him by rewarding him by doubling his animal farm!! That gave Job 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 2,000 oxen, and 1,000 donkeys! There is no rational way to argue that God rewarded Job by doubling the amount of animals on his farm if he wasn't fully in support of animal farming. And like it or not, the Christian bible has countless references in direct support of animal farming, so trying to claim that the Christian bible promotes veganism is patently absurd.
In fact, as anyone can read for themselves in the above comment, Bruce just flat-out claimed that any Catholic who is not a vegetarian doesn't even take Cachetism (the teachings of the Catholic Church) seriously! And since John Paul II was a meat eater, Bruce is literally claiming that at the same time John Paul II was supposedly a saint, he didn't even take Cachetism seriously, because he ate meat.
It truly is amazing how loopy vegan rationalizations can get, and Bruce's is certainly a doozie among doozies.