CathInfo.com

Quote from: Antony

My wife and I were recently visiting some novus ordo family.  The topic came up of Catholics eating another human in extreme circuмstance like the Donner Party.  The novus ordos seemed to have the impression that it would be morally permissable in some circuмstances.  I said that I was pretty sure it was always an evil.  The topics of organ donation and creamation also came up.  Now, I am pretty sure I know the answers to these questions, but does anyone know for sure what the Church has said about these 3 topics.  I don't want someone's opinion but what the Church really teaches.  While I dont pass personal judgements on these people, I do know that the NO has really taught them corrupt teachings.  Thank you.

Answer:

1) Some things are evil because they are prohibited.

2) And some things are prohibited because they are evil.

3) In a state of grave spiritual or physical necessity, the natural (and divine positive) law remains.

4) But the divine negative law vanishes (i.e., thou shalt not...)

5) This is why it was permissible for David to eat the loaves of proposition in the temple reserved to the priests without sinning (i.e., extreme physical necessity dispenses with the human and divine negative law).

6) Cannibalism is prohibited by the natural law (i.e., God has made it a repugnant act to the conscience of all men, and squarely against nature, and the author of nature).

7) Therefore, cannibalism would not be permissible, even in extreme physical necessity, since the natural law is never dispensed.

Quote from: Marcelino

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Antony

My wife and I were recently visiting some novus ordo family.  The topic came up of Catholics eating another human in extreme circuмstance like the Donner Party.  The novus ordos seemed to have the impression that it would be morally permissable in some circuмstances.  I said that I was pretty sure it was always an evil.  The topics of organ donation and creamation also came up.  Now, I am pretty sure I know the answers to these questions, but does anyone know for sure what the Church has said about these 3 topics.  I don't want someone's opinion but what the Church really teaches.  While I dont pass personal judgements on these people, I do know that the NO has really taught them corrupt teachings.  Thank you.

Answer:

1) Some things are evil because they are prohibited.

2) And some things are prohibited because they are evil.

3) In a state of grave spiritual or physical necessity, the natural (and divine positive) law remains.

4) But the divine negative law vanishes (i.e., thou shalt not...)

5) This is why it was permissible for David to eat the loaves of proposition in the temple reserved to the priests without sinning (i.e., extreme physical necessity dispenses with the human and divine negative law).

6) Cannibalism is prohibited by the natural law (i.e., God has made it a repugnant act to the conscience of all men, and squarely against nature, and the author of nature).

7) Therefore, cannibalism would not be permissible, even in extreme physical necessity, since the natural law is never dispensed.

This is interesting.  So, murder would always be wrong, but killing isn't necessarily wrong.  Eating the host improperly would be wrong, unless you were starving.  Eating shellfish used to be wrong, but isn't anymore.  However, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, even if you're the last two people left on Earth = always wrong.  

So, what about Pearl Jam's "Hunger Strike?" (album Temple of The Dog;  obviously an intentional reversed spelling of God)  "I don't mind stealing bread from the mouths of decadence, if I'm going hungry...."  So, the sentiment Pearl Jam expresses and then misuses to justify what I think they mean to be a form of Malthusianism, is a sound sentiment.  Correct?