COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

Catholic Q&A: when cannibalism is morally justified!

ranger*gurlranger*gurl power of love! PEx Rookie ⭐
edited September 2018 in Realm of Thought

Cannibalism
Question from Michael S. on 01-21-2001:
Is cannibalism an evil in itself? If so, why? I know some people have resorted to cannibalism to stave off death. Is that sinful?
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 01-21-2001:
Cannibalism is indeed a serious evil when this practice is deliberately pursued. As such, cannibalism is the ultimate example of the evil of reducing a human person to a means to an end. In the extreme case of the danger of death because of hunger, we have, not a deliberate pursuit as a regular practice, but rather, assuming that persons involved die of natural causes and are not murdered for the sake of consuming them, a morally justified measure in an extreme emergency.

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showresult.asp?RecNum=353171&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=cannibalism&pgnu=1&groupnum=0
«1345

Comments

  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Catholics who believe they eat the literal flesh and blood of a man Jesus Christ, are they not being cannibals too?
  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl power of love! PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    Catholics who believe they eat the literal flesh and blood of a man Jesus Christ, are they not being cannibals too?

    uh you do have a point there.  :s 
  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl power of love! PEx Rookie ⭐
    ElCid said:
    ranger*gurl:  dont you make any conclusions until we settle this on a proper duel! :D
    It only takes common sense to determine that cannibalism is revolting and evil.  In scripture it is evil and it is the height of misery to eat another human being - it is a curse and a judgement of the Lord according to scripture: 

    Ezekiel 5:10

    'Therefore, fathers will eat their sons among you, and sons will eat their fathers; for I will execute judgments on you and scatter all your remnant to every wind.




    uh that verse doesnt really say that cannibalism is evil. the context there was famine. god punished the people with severe famine that they will have to resort to cannibalism in order to survive. we all agree that its revolting but sometimes you gotto do what you gotta do in order to survive no matter how revolting it is! thats why father stephen toracco said it is morally justifiable under extreme conditions. :bring_it:

  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Question: When do you resort to a "morally justified cannibalism", what will be the conditions so this act becomes "morally justified"?
  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl power of love! PEx Rookie ⭐
    edited September 2018
    Question: When do you resort to a "morally justified cannibalism", what will be the conditions so this act becomes "morally justified"?


    Cannibalism is indeed a serious evil when this practice is deliberately pursued. As such, cannibalism is the ultimate example of the evil of reducing a human person to a means to an end. In the extreme case of the danger of death because of hunger, we have, not a deliberate pursuit as a regular practice, but rather, assuming that persons involved die of natural causes and are not murdered for the sake of consuming them, a morally justified measure in an extreme emergency.

    http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showresult.asp?RecNum=353171&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=cannibalism&pgnu=1&groupnum=0
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    What are "natural causes" of death?

    And how can "extreme danger of death because of hunger" occur - what are logical cases of this? So what do you do if no one dies of natural cause for a long time?
  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl power of love! PEx Rookie ⭐
    edited September 2018
    What are "natural causes" of death?

    And how can "extreme danger of death because of hunger" occur - what are logical cases of this? So what do you do if no one dies of natural cause for a long time?

    an accident? a heart attack? dying from starvation? those are all natural causes of death, yes?

    someone who will surely die of starvation. havent you seen the movie "alive"? its based on a true story about the survivors of a plane crash.

    the only thing i can do is die. then the survivors can eat me. its fine with me. i understand how precious life is!

    :bee:
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited September 2018
    I'd like to correct the impression that a fellow catholic like myself by the tag name of ranger*gurl is trying to impress on everyone.  This is not catholic teaching but the opinion of a cleric.  A compendium of catholic teaching can be found in the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  The opinion of a cleric and even of a catholic saint for that matter may be useful but it isn't obligatory on the faithful and moreso, it does not represent OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING on the subject.  In other words - it is not definitive and any catholic may go against it depending on the dictates of his own conscience and he is not a lesser catholic christian for doing so.

    And now ranger*gurl conflates the issue with the eucharist which is really making matters worse - she now has to reconcile what really happens in the eucharist and with what happens during 'cannibalism'.  That's the problem when one poses as an authority on the subject when one is not. So just to extricate ranger*gurl from the hole which she dug herself into, I'll be reviving the challenge I actually posed against an atheist which ranger*gurl unwittingly took unto herself just to spite me.  Anyway, there is a scheduled debate regarding this topic, and I'd like to take the opportunity to clear catholic teaching on the issue which upholds the dignity of the human person which cannibalism obviously turns away from.  Making a meal of someone's corpse obviously doesn't uphold his dignity as a human person but on the other hand is a desecration of that person's body and memory which is actually considered a crime in certain jurisdictions.  It is not catholic teaching to uphold the survival of the human person at the expense of another.  On the other hand, the Lord himself teaches the exact opposite:  There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends. Jn 15:13 and  39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. Mt 10:39

    The teaching of our lord is not to save ourselves at the expense of others, but the exact opposite - we are to lay our own lives for others since there is no greater love than that and as followers of Christ we can do no less.  Those who strive to preserve their lives especially at the expense of others will lose it, but those who struggle to sacrifice themselves that others may live will find it in the Lord Jesus Christ who would breath upon you the Holy Spirit - the Lord and giver of life and the life he gives will never end.  That is why ranger*gurl is largely mistaken.

    Again, I revive the challenge and due to the absence of moderators, I'd like to propose the debate of XIII and Menorrah format which is without a moderator which can be found in this link:  XIII and Menorrah  with a few modifications as regards timelines - I can only make a post every week and any of the PEXERS may VOTE UP in favor of the AFFIRMATIVE (RANGER*GURL) and may also VOTE DOWN in favor of the NEGATIVE (YOURS TRULY) after the last post has been made or after the NEGATIVE CONCLUSION.  I adopt without modification the topic for the debate as proposed by ranger*gurl.   A slightly modified version of the debate format is hereby provided for adoption in the debate.  I will be making the debate thread soon after ranger*gurl agrees to this debate format and with the debate rules. I'd rather have this debate with LOGITEXT, the atheist proponent of this idea rather than with ranger*gurl, who just found herself defending the idea of another since she took his side just to spite me for reasons known only to herself. 

    Note:  Everyone is free to participate in this thread but not in the official debate thread.

    Debate Topic:  "'There is an extreme emergency where cannibalism is morally justified for a virtuous christian"

    Participants:

    Answering in the Affirmative:  ranger*gurl
    Answering in the Negative: ElCid

    Moderator/s: N/A


    Format:

    I. Introductions:
    Affirmative Introduction - (500)
    Negative Introduction - (500)

    II. Constructives
    Affirmative Constructive - (2000)
    Negative Constructive - (2000)

    III. First Rebuttals 
    Affirmative First Rebuttal - (1500)
    Negative First Rebuttal - (1500)

    IV. Cross-Examination
    Affirmative's Cross-Examination - (5 questions)(500)
    Negative's Replies - (500 each)
    Negative's Cross-Examination - (5 questions)(500)
    Affirmative's Replies - (500 each)

    V. Second Rebuttals
    Affirmative's Second Rebuttal - (1000)
    Negative's Second Rebuttal - (1000)

    VI. Conclusion
    Affirmative's Conclusion - (750)
    Negative's Conclusion - (750)


    Rules:

    These rules prevail over any other informal understandings so carefully review them to make sure that they are clear and understood. Where the rules are explicit, the moderator will apply the rules to specific situations. Where the rules are silent or implicit, the moderator will rule based on his interpretation of fairness and standard debate practice.

    1. Agreed start-date: This debate starts at the moment that the AFFIRMATIVE has posted her Introduction. The affirmative side is given the usual time allowance to make her first posting.
    2. The cross-examination questions must focus only on what has been covered by the corresponding constructive of the other side.
    3. Even more importantly, the debater being cross-examined is expected to answer the questions directly. Only the moderator may decide if the question is irrelevant.
    4. Overall, the Moderator can demand that the debater change his/her post in the Q&A if the moderator believes that the post violates the rules stated earlier about relevance, focus, and directness.
    5. Maximum word count: as stated in the format.
    6. Time limit is 7 days (168 hours) from the last post by the opponent. Weekends are counted.
    7. No further editing is allowed after posting. If editing is needed, PM the mod for permission and a correction post may be inserted, if permitted, as an additional post. No change to the original post is allowed.
    8. All standard forum rules on online behavior and debate courtesies are enforced. This includes the prohibition against plagiarism and the requirement to cite sources.
    9. During the duration of the debate, debaters should not extend their debate in the peanut gallery. They are not allowed to post in the gallery that will further support their argument, rally their supporters, or criticize the opponent. This does not prevent the debaters from posting things in the gallery, such as social greetings, etc, that does not violate the earlier stated rule.
    10. Proper citation is required for any material cited.

    Tools

    Microsoft Word (for word counting).

    THIS  Catholic Q&A: when cannibalism is morally justified! thread shall serve as the peanut gallery for this debate. 

    My credentials:
    • I'm Knights of Columbus for more than 10 years and an active church choir member.
    • I have been a member of campus ministry during college in a catholic school.
    • A PEXer since 2006 and an online catholic apologist.
    • I am a Marian devotee and a slave of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    With respect to El Cid, I will stop my queries to rangur*gurl for now and will just read their "debate". :)
  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl power of love! PEx Rookie ⭐
    yey! i am really new to this so it will take a bit of time for me to study the rules and the example of a debate before i can post my introduction! but i really like to create a new thread for this, something like "exclusive: ranger*gurl vs elcid (formal debate about cannibalism)"" 

    :bee:
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    With respect to El Cid, I will stop my queries to rangur*gurl for now and will just read their "debate". :)
    Actually you are most welcome in this thread since this is not the debate thread.  Pursue your line of questioning about the eucharist and cannibalism and let's see how ranger*gurl will answer you regarding the subject.  
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ah, akala ko debate na ito dahil me opening statement ka na :lol:
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    yey! i am really new to this so it will take a bit of time for me to study the rules and the example of a debate before i can post my introduction! but i really like to create a new thread for this, something like "exclusive: ranger*gurl vs elcid (formal debate about cannibalism)"" 

    :bee:
    WOW! Confident na confident ang lola bubuyog! :lol: At baka bigla ka na lang ma-swat :lol:
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Share ko na lang itong bible verses:

    Para kay rangur*gurl:

    Matthew 6:25-34 New International Version (NIV)

    Do Not Worry

    25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

    28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


    Para kay El Cid:


    Matthew 12:25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

    Mark 3:25 New International Version (NIV)

    If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.


  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Matthew 12:25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.
    Mark 3:25 New International Version (NIV)
    If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

    We aren't divided.  There is just a need to educate another member that is why we are engaging in a formal but healthy debate. We have the catechism as our standard which is the official doctrine of the entire Roman Catholic Church.  Our church has been there for more than 2000 years and it will remain to stand until the return of our Lord Jesus Christ as a testament to our fidelity to the truth delivered to the ancients.
  • TrollmeisterTrollmeister B?nned for trolling PEX PEx Veteran ⭐⭐


    Para kay El Cid:

    Mark 3:25 New International Version (NIV)

    If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.


    Totoo ito, parang yung bahay ni Ka Eduardo Manalo, sinipa ang ina at kapatid, walang modo!  

      :rofl: 

  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐


    Para kay El Cid:

    Mark 3:25 New International Version (NIV)

    If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.


    Totoo ito, parang yung bahay ni Ka Eduardo Manalo, sinipa ang ina at kapatid, walang modo!  

      :rofl: 

    The "House" refers to the church and not a household house. As it is, iba na ang faith ng ina at ilang kapatid ni Ka Eduardo, they are not part of Christ's body anymore, unfortunately!
  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl power of love! PEx Rookie ⭐
    edited October 2018
    Share ko na lang itong bible verses:

    Para kay rangur*gurl:

    Matthew 6:25-34 New International Version (NIV)

    Do Not Worry

    25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?


    its true life is more than food! amen to that! maybe i can use this in my debate!?  :D
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Share ko na lang itong bible verses:

    Para kay rangur*gurl:

    Matthew 6:25-34 New International Version (NIV)

    Do Not Worry

    25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?


    its true life is more than food! amen to that! maybe i can use this in my debate!?  :D
    That is a bible verse, I don't own that - feel free to use it rangur*gurl! :lol:
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ang masasabi ko lang, hindi na ako agad bilib sa piniling panig ni ranger*gurl or I ALREADY DISAGREE with her, kaya siempre, vote down na agad sya sa akin. 

    Kaya nga wala rin akong masyadong bilib sa debate kasi NAUUWI ITO SA PAGALINGAN, hindi sa kung ano ang tama o totoo KUNDI sa nananalo ang isa dito dahil mas magaling syang mag-present, mag-attack at mag-counter attack. Yun lang!

    At alam naman siguro ng marami dito na kung sa pagalingan lang sa dakdakan, di hamak na mas magaling si el cid kesa ke ranger! :lol:

    So actually, dahil agree naman ako ke el cid na HINDI TAMA ang sinasabi ni ranger na "morally justified" ang cannibalism, para sa akin lamang na lamang si el cid!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file