Sorry, haven't time to read the whole thread but PEter in Acts chapter 11 is commanded to kill and eat. Vegans refust to kill. This is a distortion of morality which disallows the killing of animals for the good of man.

I like eggs.  I really enjoy breakfast.  However, I enjoy plant based recipes.  The problem with vegan recipes is too much pasta, muffins, bread.  

Yesterday, I made cowboy caviar.  

Sorry, haven't time to read the whole thread but PEter in Acts chapter 11 is commanded to kill and eat. Vegans refust to kill. This is a distortion of morality which disallows the killing of animals for the good of man.

.
The first 5 books of the Bible have numerous references to God's commandments regarding sacrificing various animals (ox, sheep, goats, calves, etc.) and His requirement that portions of them be eaten by the people of God. While the 5th Commandment (Thou shalt not kill) is very firm and simple (obviously referring to not killing people), God commanded the killing of animals for religious purposes;  and also God demanded that His people must kill the very inhabitants (must kill other people) of lands where He was directing them to invade and conquer. At one place He says if you DON'T kill the people who live there, they will always be a thorn in you side (other similar words) because you failed to follow instructions.
.
I have never seen any Scripture where God prohibits the use of animal products for man's everyday life and conveniences. So in that way it is clear that the political vegan ideology is a frontal assault on the Holy Bible and as far as that goes, Sacred Tradition. I suppose Feminism is likewise.
.

I have never seen any Scripture where God prohibits the use of animal products for man's everyday life and conveniences. So in that way it is clear that the political vegan ideology is a frontal assault on the Holy Bible and as far as that goes, Sacred Tradition.

Just because man has dominion over all the things of the earth does not excuse him from being destructive or wasteful.

The great Thomist Zigliara wrote, regarding vivisection (quoted in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article "Cruelty to Animals"):

The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136).

Also quoted in the OCE article "Cruelty to Animals," the orthodox Cdl. Manning, arguably the greatest First Vatican Council father (he was responsible for the definition on papal infallibility), wrote this against animal cruelty:

It is perfectly true that obligations and duties are between moral persons, and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of the moral obligations which we owe to one another; but we owe a seven-fold obligation to the Creator of those animals. Our obligation and moral duty is to Him who made them and if we wish to know the limit and the broad outline of our obligation, I say at once it is His nature and His perfections, and among these perfections one is, most profoundly, that of Eternal Mercy. And therefore, although a poor mule or a poor horse is not, indeed, a moral person, yet the Lord and Maker of the mule is the highest Lawgiver, and His nature is a law unto Himself. And in giving a dominion over His creatures to man, He gave it subject to the condition that it should be used in conformity to His perfections which is His own law, and therefore our law (The Zoophilist, London, 1 April, 1887).

That is, as long as he does not grant animals "rights" equal or greater than those of humans

Then he's not a vegan, for the term vegan implies this--by the Vegan Society's own statements.  He would simply be someone who abstains from eating food from animals.

Then he's not a vegan, for the term vegan implies this--by the Vegan Society's own statements.  He would simply be someone who abstains from eating food from animals.

Interesting. Here's their definition of veganism, from here:

Veganism represents a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, other animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, other animals and the environment.

I'm actually surprised they qualify it with "as far as is possible and practicable".
They also say:

We use the words ‘other animals’ or ‘non-human animals’ in our language to acknowledge that humans are animals too

So they distinguish between humans and other animals, which is good, but they do seem to think humans and "non-human animals" have equal rights when they say "All animals have a right to life". I wouldn't be surprised if they mentioned Peter Singer.

So, Geremia, are you willing to admit that veganism is not compatible with Catholicism?  

Of course, this is not to say that total abstinence from foods derived from animals is not compatible with Catholicism since choosing not to eat something is obviously compatible with the Faith.

😆 somthing funny