I have never suggested one firm praxis that should follow. I have said that I have found that I cannot eat meat without causing animals to suffer and die needlessly. I have not sought to impose this on others, only that all Catholics take this passage of the Catechism seriously and decide, honestly, for him or herself. I would not think to impose my praxis on others, as the tradition is not supportive of me doing so. But the tradition certainly is supportive of the praxis that I think is necessary in my own life.

I also don’t think that animal torture is relevant to a discussion of the morality of typical Catholic practices regarding animals.

You don’t? Don’t you think there are a good number of Catholics who hunt merely for sport? I would clearly include that in needless animal suffering and death.

I think that if there is any productive discussion left to this it would be on how moral theory should work without determining if something is actually objectively wrong.

I’m not suggesting that objective moral truth is inappropriate in this, or any other, case. I think the Catechism provides us with a clear norm: that it is objectively wrong to cause animals to suffer and die needlessly. Whether or not the particular killing of an animals is necessary depends on too many factors. I don’t think this is unique to the question of animals. If you hold to just war teaching, which I seem to remember you do, it is not easy to come up with clear answers regarding the killing of human beings. Why would there be clear answers regarding the killing of animals?

It sounds to me like your conscience is troubled by this issue. It no doubt should be troubled if you are taking this clear moral norm as seriously as the Catechism does.

I think that if there is any productive discussion left to this it would be on how moral theory should work without determining if something is actually objectively wrong. Of course there are always different levels of culpability. However at bottom, I think something is either objectively sinful or it isn’t. How does moral theology work without determining if something is objectively wrong? Can you provide other areas were you think objective moral truth inappropriate? Are there any theories that explain how moral theory should work where it is inappropriate to actually come to a clear answer?

2) Puzzling that you are attempting to discredit a passage from the Catechism merely by noting that it is rarely discussed. I’m no fundamentalist when it comes to the Catechism, but your approach here does not seem to take that document very seriously. It’s as if you think it must be a mistake. Or that is is not worth reflecting on or thinking about.

3) I think the Church has had basically correct moral views. But those have evolved. Respect for animals is part of our tradition. This line from the Catechism is in that stream of tradition and seems to make a pretty radical statement about the dignity of non-human life. This is to be welcomed, not waved aside.

4) As for your question, it is too vague. Too many variables. You are clearly looking for black and white answers, either for your own edification so you can have a perfect moral system with no grey areas, or probably more accurately, you are merely looking for me to make an absolute statement that you can continue to argue with and/or ridicule when I have said repeatedly that there are no easy answers in this new area of moral reflection. We all know stories of individuals who sadistically torture and kill animals for fun. Hopefully you would count this sin as a mortal sin and would recommend that the sick individual confess, and more, get some professional help before he or she extends his or her sick behavior to human beings. Other than these extreme cases, there are no easy answers.

This is about all I can say in response to your continued rephrased questions. If you have another question, a different one, on this matter, I’m all ears.

Yes. I do expect it to be referenced commonly. If the Church really intends to say that modern praxis is drastically off, they would be shouting it from the rooftops. As it is we have one sentence in the CCC.

I also expect the Church to have historically basically hold correct moral views. That is part of what it appears to mean to be the Church. Christianity is not a repetition of what has been done. It is appropriate to use traditional ideas of Christian morality in modern situations. Adapting to the modern world does not mean using modern progressive ethical sensitivities as a source alongside the Bible, patristics, and the magisterium.

As a question, if someone takes part in unnecessary animal suffering, is that a mortal sin and should they mention it in confession?

I wonder about your comment that this is an “obscure” passage from the CCC that you “have never seen referenced before.” Does that matter? Is it surprising that you have not seen it referenced before?

Also curious is the way you are placing animal suffering and self-denial in opposition, as if they have nothing to do with one another or as if the vegetarian saints either were vegetarians because they were concerned about animal suffering or because they were interested in self-denial. The two in fact have very much to do with one another. Fasting and self-denial, as you know, are not goods in and of themselves but are connected to other realities, one of which is the social dimension of these practices, an attempt to live simply in the face of poverty for example.

You are right that this way of viewing animals is not “all that common” in the history of the Church. So what? Christianity is hardly a mere repetition of what has been done and what has been thought in the past but a creative engagement with the tradition in the present. That’s what Christianity has always been.

So, no, I don’t take what I think your interpretation is to be compelling. I definitely don’t find your practices necessary.

As to how to interpret this statement and what practices to avoid, well, I’m not sure. I probably need to reflect more on the topic. I guess I don’t see myself as inflicting gratuitous suffering on animals, but that is probably a weaker standard than what the Catechism is teaching.

I have to wonder about citing various saints and orders as vegetarians. Were the saints (and modern orders) you mention primarily concerned about animal suffering, or were they more interested in self denial? I don’t know for sure, but it doesn’t seem to me that the line of thinking you present has been all that common in the first 2000 years of Christianity.

You seem to have repeated yourself a good deal. I’m not sure what else I can say about this.

I think that the obvious conclusion to your interpretation is that millions of Catholics need to give up eating meat.

I would certainly say that I think millions of Catholics should give up eating meat. Do they need to? That’s for them to reflect on and decide. I definitely think this is one area where the Church simply could not give a definitive, objective moral rule. Too many cultural factors are at work. What we have is a very good principle, mentioned in the Catechism, that we can apply in various cultural contexts and decide accordingly. As it stands, it seems to be a very rigorous moral guideline!

Although, I really can’t think of any orders. But they aren’t to my knowledge saying that eating meat is objectively wrong when it is not necessary for one’s personal diet.

No orders that I know of say it’s “objectively” wrong, no. That would seem to contradict the Church’s general view. I’m not aware of any orders that make vegetarianism an absolute rule. Even the ones who generally hold to a vegetarian diet will make exceptions.

However, most of the church eats meat. I don’t see how you avoid, given your interpretation,the conclusion that most people are committing an objective sin for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

It’s certainly a complex issue. I think most Catholics simply don’t think about what they eat. Ignorance certainly takes away from personal guilt to some degree. On the other hand, I have met Catholics (and others) who ridicule vegetarians — myself, to my face, for example — and who gloat about the fact that human beings are “meant” to dominate animals and enjoy the flavor and nourishment that their corpses provide. It’s a type of gluttony that even seems to revel in the bloody details of meat eating (“Mmm this dead cow is delicious! Does this bother you?” or “If God didn’t want us to eat animals he wouldn’t have made them out of meat,” etc. etc.). I do think that’s sinful, and it’s also quite common. But no, I would not use the term “objective sin” unless one’s consciousness included these kinds of gluttonous attitudes.

I haven’t heard any bishops, cardinals, curial officials, or even moral theologians out there telling us not to eat meat. I’m not even aware of any pastors telling their congregation not to eat meat.

I’m not aware of any pastors who told their soldier parishioners that they might want to think about staying home from Iraq either, so I’m not sure what they really have to do with it.

There are moral theologians studying these issues. We have referenced some above.

Apart from the “Do I personally need to eat meat” question is the more social-economic-political question of factory farming and the systemic abuse of animals in various industries that use animals. Even if one could in good conscience decide that he or she “needs” to eat meat, the treatment of animals in these industries is a reality that any Christian or person of good will who eats or wears animals must take seriously. Pope Benedict has even spoken out against abuse of animals. If one is going to continue eating meat, he or she should look into alternatives to factory farming.

You seem to be obsessed with “objective moral truth,” perhaps in a disordered way. But since that is probably not possible in this case, let me ask you: Do you find the Catechism compelling on this issue? Do you find my interpretation, and my own ethical conclusion and praxis persuasive? Has it made you stop and think about your own eating practices? Even aside from the meat question, reflection on what we eat in general is important for people of faith. As the saying goes, eating is a moral act.

I think that the obvious conclusion to your interpretation is that millions of Catholics need to give up eating meat. This is actually pretty tight argument. If causing needless suffering to animals is wrong, and we both agree that most people don’t technically need to eat meat to have a healthy diet, then the only possible conclusion is that most people are morally wrong to eat meat. You can soften it with qualifying phrases, but I don’t see how this is not the obvious conclusion. It is almost as if you are trying to avoid the obvious conclusion of your interpretation.

And yes, there are obviously a number of Catholic vegetarians. Although, I really can’t think of any orders. But they aren’t to my knowledge saying that eating meat is objectively wrong when it is not necessary for one’s personal diet. If it is not something that is morally obligatory, it would appear to be more of a personal preference.

However, most of the church eats meat. I don’t see how you avoid, given your interpretation,the conclusion that most people are committing an objective sin for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I’m not aware of any significant reform movement in the Church that is saying that it is wrong for most people to eat meat. I haven’t heard any bishops, cardinals, curial officials, or even moral theologians out there telling us not to eat meat. I’m not even aware of any pastors telling their congregation not to eat meat.

And, no, I didn’t intend to make an accusation of soft gnosticism. I’m sorry it came out that way.

I don’t interpret no. 2418 to imply a universal moral necessity of vegetarianism. Sorry if that’s how you understood me. I take it to mean exactly what it says: causing needless suffering to animals is wrong. I think it is a moral teaching that we have to bring to our own contexts. In my case, I think eating meat would cause needless suffering to animals. I don’t need to eat meat. While I would argue that a large portion of humanity also does not need to eat meat, I would not elevate my own experience to a universal.

Nor would I suggest that I have some secret knowledge of “true” Catholic teaching regarding meat eating. I find it somewhat strange that you would suggest that latter point. I have not implied any such thing, yet you feel the need to make an soft accusation of gnosticism? Is that fair?

It’s strange that you aren’t aware of “visible movements” against eating meat in our tradition. Various religious orders do not eat meat. There are various cases in which Catholics are called to abstain from eating meat. Various saints were vegetarians. Looking more ecumenically and more contemporarily, there is a movement called the Christian Vegetarian Association. Vegetarianism is not foreign to the Catholic Christian tradition.

Do you know if there has been any discussion of exactly why they put that into the Catechism or what they intended by writing it?

I think my attention was drawn to that passage because it was quoted in some article I was reading. May have been one of the John Berkman articles I mentioned above. Again, I think the intention is very straightforward: it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer when there is no need to do so. Killing them for meat or clothing could be a necessity, and therefore not always morally wrong. But the passage does seem to suggest that Catholics should stop and think about their relationship to animal suffering and whether or not it is really necessary. That’s what I ended up doing in my own prayer and reflection, and the answer I came up with is that, as a Catholic, I should give up eating meat.

I was wondering if you could give any more context to CCC #2418. I see how you interpret that to imply the moral necessity of vegetarianism. It seems a little incongruous to think that the authors mean what you take it to mean– given the lack of any visible movement condemning eating meat among the laity, clergy, or the curia. It seems that if they really intended to condemn eating meat when it was not absolutely necessary for one’s diet, we would have heard more about this somewhere. Your comment, while it makes perfect sense, almost seems like some sort of hidden teaching of Catholicism as if you are one of a few people who know that the Catholic Church really teaches that most people (who don’t have some sort of strange dietary requirement that they eat mean) sin by eating meat.

Do you know if there has been any discussion of exactly why they put that into the Catechism or what they intended by writing it?

God gave man dominion for a purpose — not to use and abuse the earth, but to tend to it and help it. And Michael is right, when talking about animal rights, we have to discern what those rights are, just as we have to determine what rights humanity have. Indeed, I think the rights of different animals will probably be different, and so it is not just one thing for all. But once we understand the purpose of our dominion (as St Maximus the Confessor points out, it’s to be a mediator to the world, including to the animal kingdom) then that will begin to show how we are to discern those rights, too.

This is what we mean by animal rights. We do not mean they should be given rights like the right to vote.