I challenged Joe on his vegetarianism post and here is his reply. My answers in italics and purple.
In response to the post below on vegetarianism, Elena wrote:
I will never understand how folks that preach things like “natural” vegetarianism, also support artificial birth control.
I have stated multiple times that my wife and I have not used artificial contraception and I have stated that our reasons for not using it are along the same lines for why we eat a vegetarian diet. Our reasons have more to do with an attitude about health and putting unnecessary chemicals in the body than morality. In other words, they are not purely moral reasons based on Church teaching.
Well Joe, most of your theology isn’t based on Catholic teaching, but just your interpretation of it! No change here.
Actually, given the arguments below for vegetarianism, a stronger moral case can be made by the Church for the immorality of meat eating than for use of artificial contraception.
In my conclusion below, I stated that I do not believe that vegetarianism is an absolute moral demand, but merely an invitation. While there may be reasons for considering the invitation, I make no judgment against those who chose to eat meat. In fact, as I point out, I think the writings of Saint Paul forbid me to make such a judgment.
Good, because there is absolutely nothing in Catholic Church teaching that forbids the eating of meat except on Fridays (absolutely during Lent and in lieu of an other work of mercy during the rest of the year.)
They met in the first ecumenical Council and came to the following conclusion:
It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage.
My attitude towards artificial contraception is very similar.
Your attitude towards artificial contraception is just that – YOUR attitude. It is not the attitude of the Pope or the Magesterium, and it is not the official teaching of the catechism or the unbroken tradition from the apostles forward.
The rest of your article where you attempt to make the circumcision discussion in the same realm as contraception is a red herring and not really pertinent to the ongoing teaching of the church on the latter.
My attitude about artificial contraception is that it is not something I want to use. However, we have no more authority to say someone else shouldn’t use artificial contraception than we have to say that it is immoral to eat meat!
Actually that’s not quite true. The Spiritual acts of mercy tell us that we are to instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner. In a sense it is your responsibility to do so when the occasion occurs.
Furthermore, the reasoning the Church uses on the issue of contraception is exactly the kind of reasoning those who wanted gentiles circumcised use.
Actually it’s not, and a study of John Paul IIs theology of the Body will make illuminate the beauty of this teaching for you should you take the time to study it.
Therefore, unless the Church can demonstrate how its teaching on contraception is tied directly to the golden rule,
No problem!! The Theology of the Body, John Paul II, Pauline Books and Media, page 485.
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook). You can chat with me on the tag board to the right!
