Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Health and Nutrition => Topic started by: Geremia on June 25, 2017, 09:13:38 PM

Title: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on June 25, 2017, 09:13:38 PM
A Catholic can certainly be a vegan, as long as it is for the correct reasons. The vegan vs. carnivore debate should really be about the health effects of either type of diet, not about their environmental impact (which is harder to accurately assess anyways). Many studies have shown vegans have the lowest incidences of several disease (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, blood cancers, etc.); cf. https://nutritionfacts.org/
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 06:35:36 AM
I disagree.  It's like saying a Catholic can be "gαy" as long as he is celibate.

Announcing that one is "gαy" is a political term and it connotes a political ideal.  "Vegan" is also a political term and it connotes a political idea.  

A moral Catholic who thinks of himself as sɛҳuąƖly disordered will simply never take a wife or participate in certain practices but he will never announce himself as nor accept the label "gαy".  Likewise, a person may very well choose to abstain from meat and all animal products as a personal sacrifice but he will never announce himself as nor accept the label "vegan".  These labels undermine the faith in both the individual accepting them and in society at large.  We should always guard against accepting labels that have been created or co-opted by the forces of evil.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Last Tradhican on June 26, 2017, 08:12:49 AM
A very astute observation by TKGS. A Catholic should never call themselves a vegan. 

My neighbors wife (non-Catholic)  is a vegan, its a recent change in the last 2 years, she was slim and fit before, now she's put on weight, she looks bloated, a big change. I think it is from eating too much soybean based protein. The two vegans I know, look unhealthy. 

I do not believe any major deviation from a traditional diet is going to be good for you. If you eat fresh vegetables, fruits, whole breads, and meats, butter, eggs......, avoid processed foods and overeating, and do exercise and physical activity, you will not need any of these "new and improved marketing ploys" like veganism and such. One can try one of these gimmicks, like the paleo diet to get back to healty weight more quickly, however, one should always return to a traditional diet. People who are overweight and unhealthy are so because they ate junk and didn't exercise. It is that simple. 
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Peter15and1 on June 26, 2017, 10:28:46 AM
Personally, I've never thought of "vegan" as a political term, rather just as a description (a person who does not eat animal products of any kind).  However, that's just an argument over semantics.  A Catholic could certainly choose to not eat any animal product if he so chooses.  I believe the Carthusians, for example, practice perpetual abstinence from meat.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 12:00:42 PM
Personally, I've never thought of "vegan" as a political term, rather just as a description (a person who does not eat animal products of any kind).  However, that's just an argument over semantics.  A Catholic could certainly choose to not eat any animal product if he so chooses.  I believe the Carthusians, for example, practice perpetual abstinence from meat.
You should re-read what I wrote and actually try to understand what it is I wrote.
Of course a Catholic can choose to practice perpetual abstinence.  What he cannot do is identify as "vegan".  You should be grateful that you are disconnected enough from society so as to not consider the political meaning of the term; but it seems odd that you could be disconnected in such a way as to understand the term but not understand how society views it.  
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Peter15and1 on June 26, 2017, 01:19:32 PM
You should re-read what I wrote and actually try to understand what it is I wrote.
Of course a Catholic can choose to practice perpetual abstinence.  What he cannot do is identify as "vegan".  You should be grateful that you are disconnected enough from society so as to not consider the political meaning of the term; but it seems odd that you could be disconnected in such a way as to understand the term but not understand how society views it.  
I did read your post carefully; I simply disagree with it.  To me, if a person identifies themselves as a "vegan," it indicates their unwillingness to eat food that comes from animals, and nothing more.

It's the answer to the question that follows--"why are you a vegan?"--where problems could arise.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 01:37:34 PM
I did read your post carefully; I simply disagree with it.  To me, if a person identifies themselves as a "vegan," it indicates their unwillingness to eat food that comes from animals, and nothing more.

It's the answer to the question that follows--"why are you a vegan?"--where problems could arise.
No.  You didn't simply disagree.  Your reply indicated that you can't understand (or are unwilling to understand) the objection.  This is the same kind of attitude we saw about the use of the Pagan screen name, "Student of Qi".
I guess when people are so imbued with the popular culture that they can't see the problem, then it best to simply shake the dust of the feet.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Peter15and1 on June 26, 2017, 02:21:47 PM
No.  You didn't simply disagree.  Your reply indicated that you can't understand (or are unwilling to understand) the objection.  This is the same kind of attitude we saw about the use of the Pagan screen name, "Student of Qi".
I guess when people are so imbued with the popular culture that they can't see the problem, then it best to simply shake the dust of the feet.
I do understand the objection, I just disagree with it.  The word "vegan," to me, means a person who refrains from eating animal products, and nothing more.  Clearly, the word means something different to you, and includes with it certain political connotations.  The dictionary agrees with me.  Perhaps most of society would agree with you, I don't know.  For you to make the claim, however, that a Catholic is undermining the faith by calling himself a vegan, you would have to provide actual evidence that the word "vegan" carries with it the baggage you claim.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vegan?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: ClarkSmith on June 26, 2017, 03:05:08 PM
Personally, I've never thought of "vegan" as a political term, rather just as a description (a person who does not eat animal products of any kind).  However, that's just an argument over semantics.  A Catholic could certainly choose to not eat any animal product if he so chooses.  I believe the Carthusians, for example, practice perpetual abstinence from meat.
Carthusians followed a diet closer to a pescatarian diet because they ate fish, eggs, and cheese. 
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jovita on June 26, 2017, 03:56:13 PM
We need to take back our vocabulary. gαy means lighthearted and carefree. The rainbow is a symbol of God's covenant with Noah. To be vegan is to be a strict vegetarian, not eating any animal products or products produced by animals (no milk or milk products, no eggs, no honey). It is not political. I have a family member who is a strict vegan due to medical protocols for MS. Since the diet started she has not relapsed. We cater too much to disordered people. 

Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Matthew on June 26, 2017, 04:04:51 PM
Quote
a strict vegetarian (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegetarian#h1) who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals; also :  one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)

A Catholic would have serious issues with such a practice or agenda.

WHY are you abstaining from any product that comes from animals? Because they "animals are people too"? Because monkeys evolved into man, and so for all we know dolphins and other animals might be intelligent life? Because God didn't give animals to us for our use? Because only cavemen (like the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, saints, etc.) would be so primitive as to eat meat? Because there isn't a God in the first place? Because God doesn't know what's good for our health?

Think about it.

Also, whatever health benefits vegetarianism provides, there is NO health benefit to not using "animal products" like leather. The only reason to abstain from leather is due to pagan, new-age, or other non-Catholic beliefs.

Let's put it this way: abstaining from all animals (and animal products) in a vegan manner suggests that "God made a mistake" -- a blasphemy that any Catholic should hold in horror.


Quote
Genesis Chapter 9

[1] And God blessed Noe and his sons. And he said to them: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. [2] And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand. [3] And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you: 
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: JezusDeKoning on June 26, 2017, 04:12:32 PM
A Catholic would have serious issues with such a practice or agenda.

WHY are you abstaining from any product that comes from animals? Because they are on an equal footing with men? Because God didn't give them to us for our use? Because only cavemen (like the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, saints, etc.) would be so primitive as to eat meat? Because there isn't a God in the first place?

Think about it.

Also, whatever health benefits vegetarianism provides, there is NO health benefit to not using "animal products" like leather. The only reason to abstain from leather is due to pagan, new-age, or other non-Catholic beliefs.

Let's put it this way: abstaining from all animals (and animal products) in a vegan manner suggests that "God made a mistake" -- a blasphemy that any Catholic should hold in horror.
Most vegans just don't eat meat, eggs or food with animal products. That's all. I've never met one that doesn't use animal products, they just don't eat them. 
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 05:13:57 PM
Most vegans just don't eat meat, eggs or food with animal products. That's all. I've never met one that doesn't use animal products, they just don't eat them.
Back in the 1970s, they used to throw paint on the fur coats worn by rich women and actresses before they became enlightened and stopped wearing them.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 05:18:31 PM
We need to take back our vocabulary. gαy means lighthearted and carefree. The rainbow is a symbol of God's covenant with Noah. To be vegan is to be a strict vegetarian, not eating any animal products or products produced by animals (no milk or milk products, no eggs, no honey). It is not political. I have a family member who is a strict vegan due to medical protocols for MS. Since the diet started she has not relapsed. We cater too much to disordered people.
That's a nice thought.  Next time you're at a party and having a really good time, just tell everyone how gαy you are.
  
The problem with this sentiment is that the small minority of English speakers are simply not going to be able to "take back the vocabulary".  The best we can do is refrain from using the vocabulary that has been perverted--but it doesn't seem that many people have the ability to understand this and wish to stubbornly continue using a vocabulary that will present a false impression to virtually everyone they meet.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Last Tradhican on June 26, 2017, 05:37:34 PM
Most vegans just don't eat meat, eggs or food with animal products. That's all. I've never met one that doesn't use animal products, they just don't eat them.
Vegans by definition do not use animal products, their main objective is to not kill animals, think about it, why would they use products produced by killing animals (leather)  if they do not even eat eggs?
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 06:38:37 PM
... you would have to provide actual evidence that the word "vegan" carries with it the baggage you claim.
It seems that others have already done so.

What you seem to want "vegan" to mean already has a word in English, "vegetarian".  Why use the term, "vegan", if not to connote something different?  The rest of society does indeed use it for an unholy idea.  If you still simply "disagree" after reading what has been posted, I have to wonder why.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Peter15and1 on June 26, 2017, 08:34:36 PM
It seems that others have already done so.

What you seem to want "vegan" to mean already has a word in English, "vegetarian".  Why use the term, "vegan", if not to connote something different?  The rest of society does indeed use it for an unholy idea.  If you still simply "disagree" after reading what has been posted, I have to wonder why.
No.  "Vegan" and "vegetarian" have two clearly different meanings, neither of which includes anything political.

"Vegetarian" means someone who doesn't eat flesh from animals.

"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.

These are dictionary definitions.  If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 08:41:06 PM
No.  "Vegan" and "vegetarian" have two clearly different meanings, neither of which includes anything political.

"Vegetarian" means someone who doesn't eat flesh from animals.

"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.

These are dictionary definitions.  If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.
ok.  whatever.  You can be a vegan.  Go ahead and ignore reality and go with what your dictionaries tell you.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 08:45:46 PM
A Catholic would have serious issues with such a practice or agenda.

WHY are you abstaining from any product that comes from animals? Because they "animals are people too"? Because monkeys evolved into man, and so for all we know dolphins and other animals might be intelligent life? Because God didn't give animals to us for our use? Because only cavemen (like the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, saints, etc.) would be so primitive as to eat meat? Because there isn't a God in the first place? Because God doesn't know what's good for our health?

Think about it.

Also, whatever health benefits vegetarianism provides, there is NO health benefit to not using "animal products" like leather. The only reason to abstain from leather is due to pagan, new-age, or other non-Catholic beliefs.

Let's put it this way: abstaining from all animals (and animal products) in a vegan manner suggests that "God made a mistake" -- a blasphemy that any Catholic should hold in horror.
This.  Put much better than I could.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 27, 2017, 10:18:06 AM
I do understand the objection, I just disagree with it.  The word "vegan," to me, means a person who refrains from eating animal products, and nothing more.  Clearly, the word means something different to you, and includes with it certain political connotations.  The dictionary agrees with me.  Perhaps most of society would agree with you, I don't know.  For you to make the claim, however, that a Catholic is undermining the faith by calling himself a vegan, you would have to provide actual evidence that the word "vegan" carries with it the baggage you claim.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vegan?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan
Funny, I just looked at these dictionary definitions and it appears that you didn't since both of these dictionaries say that a vegan is more than what you say vegan means.  Even your own evidence condemns you.  These are the definitions that society has determined vegan to mean.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Last Tradhican on June 27, 2017, 10:45:14 AM
Funny, I just looked at these dictionary definitions and it appears that you didn't since both of these dictionaries say that a vegan is more than what you say vegan means.  Even your own evidence condemns you.  These are the definitions that society has determined vegan to mean.
Wow! They do not even use wool !!!!!! Taking wool from an animal does not hurt the animal it actually relieves it. These vegans are sicker than I thought.

Definition of vegan:

1. a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet.

2. a person who does not use any animal products, as leather or wool.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on June 27, 2017, 04:01:58 PM
a person may very well choose to abstain from meat and all animal products as a personal sacrifice but he will never announce himself as nor accept the label "vegan".
Why do you assume adopting a vegan diet is a "personal sacrifice"? That makes it seem somehow the vegan diet is deficient rather than a great benefit to health. Adopting a vegan diet does not necessarily mean one is fasting; one could still be a complete glutton while avoiding eating all animal products.

cf. what St. Thomas says about fasting in "Whether it is fitting that those who fast should be bidden to abstain from flesh meat, eggs, and milk foods? (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS147.html#SSQ147A8THEP1)":


Quote
Objection 2: Further, some fish are as delectable to eat as the flesh of certain animals. Now "concupiscence is desire of the delectable," as stated above (FS (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS.html), Question [30] (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS030.html#FSQ30OUTP1), Article [1] (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS030.html#FSQ30A1THEP1)). Therefore since fasting which was instituted in order to bridle concupiscence does not exclude the eating of fish, neither should it exclude the eating of flesh meat.

Reply to Objection 2: In the institution of fasting, the Church takes account of the more common occurrences. Now, generally speaking, eating flesh meat affords more pleasure than eating fish, although this is not always the case. Hence the Church forbade those who fast to eat flesh meat, rather than to eat fish.
Thus, fasting is not about food in itself but the delectation one takes in food.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 27, 2017, 05:51:57 PM
Why do you assume adopting a vegan diet is a "personal sacrifice"?
Because meat and dairy products are delicious and going without them is a sacrifice.  At least in my case and in my wife's case.  Frankly, we found the most difficult transition to tradition were the Fridays, Ember Days, and the several Vigils which require fast and/or abstinence.

If it's not a personal sacrifice for you, by all means adopt the vegan diet for pagan reasons.  I really don't care.  But if you call yourself a "Vegan", I will consider you a pagan as will most people you tell.  (See Matthew's post above.)
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on June 27, 2017, 11:14:13 PM
by all means adopt the vegan diet for pagan reasons.
Adopting it for health reasons is not to adopt it for pagan reasons. Catholics must care about their health; failure to do so is a violation of the 5th Commandment.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: MaterDominici on June 28, 2017, 12:33:03 AM
Isn't it simple enough to say, "I avoid sources of saturated fat as I believe it to be unhealthy," rather than, "I'm a vegan."

I agree that "vegan" implies that your avoidance has more to do with the animal than with yourself.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 28, 2017, 05:34:00 AM
Isn't it simple enough to say, "I avoid sources of saturated fat as I believe it to be unhealthy," rather than, "I'm a vegan."
Apparently, many people feel the need adopt labels that will present themselves as more enlightened in the ways of the world so others won't think of them as Catholic.

I certainly never expected to hear a Catholic suggest that not being a Vegan is a violation of the Fifth Commandment!
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jovita on June 28, 2017, 08:08:56 AM
Daniel's fast is a Biblical record of the physical benefits of eating vegetables. Monastic orders traditionally ate this way. The Eastern churches, Orthdox and Catholic eat this way during the Great Fast and lesser fasts. 
Daniel 1 (RSVCE)
Four Young Israelites at the Babylonian Court
In the third year of the reign of Jehoi′akim king of Judah, Nebuchadnez′zar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoi′akim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. Then the king commanded Ash′penaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, handsome and skilful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to serve in the king’s palace, and to teach them the letters and language of the Chalde′ans. The king assigned them a daily portion of the rich food which the king ate, and of the wine which he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. Among these were Daniel, Hanani′ah, Mish′a-el, and Azari′ah of the tribe of Judah. And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshaz′zar, Hanani′ah he called Shadrach, Mish′a-el he called Meshach, and Azari′ah he called Abed′nego.
8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s rich food, or with the wine which he drank; therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs; 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear lest my lord the king, who appointed your food and your drink, should see that you were in poorer condition than the youths who are of your own age. So you would endanger my head with the king.” 11 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Hanani′ah, Mish′a-el, and Azari′ah, 12 “Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink13 Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s rich food be observed by you, and according to what you see deal with your servants.” 14 So he hearkened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’s rich food. 16 So the steward took away their rich food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.
17 As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all letters and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. 18 At the end of the time, when the king had commanded that they should be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnez′zar. 19 And the king spoke with them, and among them all none was found like Daniel, Hanani′ah, Mish′a-el, and Azari′ah; therefore they stood before the king. 20 And in every matter of wisdom and understanding concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom. 21 And Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Matthew on June 28, 2017, 11:40:09 AM
No offense, but we're Traditional Catholics here, and Trads prefer the Douay-Rheims Bible for its accuracy and fidelity to the Latin Vulgate. Yes, it's old-fashioned, but so is the Tridentine Mass! The motto of Trads is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Trads also know that St. Jerome had access to manuscripts which were OLDER than some of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that other translations rely on. Plus St. Jerome was hand-picked and hand-trained by the hand of Providence to become a master of Latin, Greek and Hebrew from an early age. 

Daniel and his companions are taken into the palace of the king of Babylon: they abstain from his meat and wine, and succeed better with pulse and water. Their excellence and wisdom.
[1] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=1-#x) In the third year of the reign of Joakim king of Juda, Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and besieged it. [2] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=2-#x) And the Lord delivered into his hands Joakim the king of Juda, and part of the vessels of the house of God: and he carried them away into the land of Sennaar, to the house of his god, and the vessels he brought into the treasure house of his god. [3] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=3-#x) And the king spoke to Asphenez the master of the eunuchs, that he should bring in some of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed and of the princes, [4] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=4-#x) Children in whom there was no blemish, well favoured, and skillful in all wisdom, acute in knowledge, and instructed in science, and such as might stand in the king's palace, that he might teach them the learning, and the tongue of the Chaldeans. [5] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=5-#x) And the king appointed them a daily provision, of his own meat, and of the wine of which he drank himself, that being nourished three years, afterwards they might stand before the king.
[2] "His god": Bel or Belus, the principal idol of the Chaldeans.
[6] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=6-#x) Now there were among them of the children of Juda, Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias. [7] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=7-#x) And the master of the eunuchs gave them names: to Daniel, Baltassar: to Ananias, Sidrach: to Misael, Misach: and to Azarias, Abdenago. [8] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=8-#x) But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not be defiled with the king's table, nor with the wine which he drank: and he requested the master of the eunuchs that he might not be defiled. [9] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=9-#x) And God gave to Daniel grace and mercy in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs. [10] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=10-#x) And the prince of the eunuchs said to Daniel: I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed you meat and drink: who if he should see your faces leaner than those of the other youths your equals, you shall endanger my head to the king.
[8] "Be defiled": Viz., either by eating meat forbidden by the law, or which had before been offered to idols.
[11] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=11-#x) And Daniel said to Malasar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias: [12] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=12-#x) Try, I beseech thee, thy servants for ten days, and let pulse be given us to eat, and water to drink: [13] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=13-#x) And look upon our faces, and the faces of the children that eat of the king's meat: and as thou shalt see, deal with thy servants. [14] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=14-#x) And when he had heard these words, he tried them for ten days. [15] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=15-#x) And after ten days their faces appeared fairer and fatter than all the children that ate of the king's meat.
[12] "Pulse": That is, pease, beans, and such like.
[16] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=16-#x) So Malasar took their portions, and the wine that they should drink: and he gave them pulse. [17] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=17-#x) And to these children God gave knowledge, and understanding in every book, and wisdom: but to Daniel the understanding also of all visions and dreams. [18] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=18-#x) And when the days were ended, after which the king had ordered they should be brought in: the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nabuchodonosor. [19] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=19-#x) And when the king had spoken to them, there were not found among them all such as Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias: and they stood in the king's presence. [20] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=20-#x) And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom.
[21] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=21-#x) And Daniel continued even to the first year of king Cyrus.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Matthew on June 28, 2017, 11:45:49 AM
So this was a question of fidelity to the Mosaic Law (which forbid certain meats as a test of obedience) or a more basic law, which requires that all men worship only the True God.

I think it's obvious that the superior health of Daniel was more of a sign from God, almost a miracle, rather than official health advice.

Should we take sheep breeding advice from the chapters about Jacob as well? I don't think Jacob's technique (showing lots of colors to sheep as they were mating) would always result in more "diverse colored" sheep being born. But God choose to give this result, to multiply Jacob's wealth.

The Holy Ghost didn't intend for Scripture to be health advice, stock advice, career advice, or any of that. Such is a Protestant mistake, because all they have is Scripture. They are like the hammer that sees everything as a nail. When all you have is a hammer (Scripture), everything is a nail!
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jovita on June 28, 2017, 01:18:08 PM
2 Timothy 3:16-17Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
     I agree that Protestants use scripture as a hammer, but Catholics tend to ignore it completely. It is not a useless collection of books.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on June 28, 2017, 01:19:58 PM
What amazes me is that never have I suggested that people can't abstain from meat and food from animals.  I haven't even suggested that one shouldn't.  

The only thing I have said is that one cannot identify as a vegan because that identification carries with it a deeper meaning than simply, "I don't eat meat or animal products".  The term carries with it a pagan understanding just as the term gαy carries with it an approval of a sinful lifestyle--whether one is chaste or not.

Had Geremia titled the topic, "Does anyone perpetually abstain?" instead of "Any vegans here?" and had written:

Quote
A Catholic can certainly be a abstain from all meat and animal products, as long as it is for the correct reasons. Dietary debates should really be about the health effects of the various diets, not about their environmental impact (which is harder to accurately assess anyways). Many studies have shown people who abstain from all animal products have the lowest incidences of several disease (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, blood cancers, etc.); cf. https://nutritionfacts.org/ (https://nutritionfacts.org/)
I would not have even responded because it would have been an issue that is not controversial at all.  What is disturbing is the acceptance of Catholics embracing the use of terms which, by the way they are used and understood by society, are intrinsically anti-Catholic.  What is even more disturbing is the fact that this topic (and previous topics) have demonstrated that many Catholics who consider themselves traditional Catholics don't even care.  It's as if they want to embrace the world!

That is what is truly sad!
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on July 02, 2017, 11:37:49 PM
one cannot identify as a vegan because that identification carries with it a deeper meaning than simply, "I don't eat meat or animal products".
By that logic, it seems "one cannot identify as a Catholic because that identification carries with it a deeper meaning than simply, 'I am a member of the Catholic Church'."
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on July 03, 2017, 12:18:36 AM
it's obvious that the superior health of Daniel was more of a sign from God, almost a miracle, rather than official health advice.
How is this obvious?
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on July 03, 2017, 05:45:58 AM
By that logic, it seems "one cannot identify as a Catholic because that identification carries with it a deeper meaning than simply, 'I am a member of the Catholic Church'."
I would certainly hope that anyone who identifies as a Catholic embraces all of those deeper meanings over and above simply being a "member of the Catholic Church".

But you have accidentally demonstrated what I have been trying to telling you:  these labels are more than superficial descriptions; they are descriptions of your whole being, body and soul, your belief system.  When you take upon yourself a label, it tells society and God a great deal about the true state of your soul.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Matthew on July 03, 2017, 06:28:30 AM
How is this obvious?

Because I'm taking for granted that I'm among Catholics, and Catholics know that God never intended for the Bible to be in the "Health" section of the library or bookstore.

And because, as Catholics, we have much more to guide our lives (morality) than JUST the Bible.

And yes, I am implying that the Bible is insufficient as a path to heaven (I know this belief is considered heresy by any protestant.)

But we're not protestants here, so I shouldn't be ashamed to say that.

Prots try to find everything in the Bible, from answers to every question and controversy in the modern world, to advice on stock picks and why young people shouldn't listen to rock music or take drugs.
I'm sorry, but those issues simply aren't covered in the Bible. It is inadequate. Period.

That is why, as Catholics, we have the Church Fathers, the Magisterium, the lives of the Saints -- in other words, Tradition.

For some issues, the answer is in the Bible. For other issues, we have to look to Tradition.

Have you considered that, if God was pushing vegetarianism (remember, the Holy Ghost inspired the whole Bible, and you're saying that the bit about Daniel and his companions is to be taken as health advice) then why isn't a Vegetarian or Vegan message pushed more consistently throughout the Bible? Because it seems to me that every time abstinence is mentioned, it's always in the context of penance -- not health.

And if you want to talk Scripture, there's always that quote I gave you, where God specifically gave us all animals to be our meat. I think that's pretty clear-cut.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Matthew on July 03, 2017, 06:34:41 AM
2 Timothy 3:16-17Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
    I agree that Protestants use scripture as a hammer, but Catholics tend to ignore it completely. It is not a useless collection of books.

Your argument is neither here nor there.

No one is saying Scripture is useless. It is merely not the be-all-and-end-all, or the alpha and omega of theology or morality.

And thinking there is a Scripture quote for everything goes hand-in-hand with private interpretation of Scripture, which is a protestant heresy. Some Scripture quotes are easy to interpret; others are more difficult. But the proper interpretation of Scripture is always what the Catholic Church says it is.

Because Scripture is only ONE of the pillars of our Faith. The other is Tradition.

There are plenty of issues for which a person must put down his Bible and look elsewhere for answers or guidance.


P.S. You don't post much here, so maybe you don't know me at all. But I know Scripture VERY well, I've read the entire Bible several times, and that is why I'm always quoting Scripture to augment my teaching and arguments when appropriate. When there's a proper Scripture reference for something, it is indeed very powerful, as 2 Timothy 3:16 says. There is no substitute.

But whenever Scripture comes up empty on a given topic (and such cases are more numerous than you might think), you have to use other authorities, sources of truth, and/or logic to make your argument.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jaynek on July 03, 2017, 07:45:20 AM
One only needs two minutes on the Vegan Society website, to see that TKGS is taking the correct position: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism (https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism)

Here are some quotes so nobody has to give traffic to their site:

Quote
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.


Quote
Although the vegan diet was defined early on in The Vegan Society's beginnings in 1944, it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism. He suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.
Quote
"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, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Notice that health is not even mentioned here.  Veganism is an ideology that assumes that human beings do not have a right to eat or use animal products. It is incompatible with Catholicism.  A Catholic should not call himself a vegan any more than he (or she) should call himself a feminist.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jaynek on July 03, 2017, 08:00:37 AM
For the record, I see no reason to think that the vegan diet is healthy.  These people tend to be deficient in protein and other nutrients.  Is is very difficult to get proper nourishment without any animal products.  

But that is beside the point.  This diet is attached to a philosophy that is opposed to basic Catholic assumptions about God's creation.  Even if there were some good reason to eat that way (which is unlikely) it would be wrong to identify oneself with a anti-Catholic philosophy by calling oneself a vegan.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jaynek on July 03, 2017, 08:11:36 AM
...
"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.

These are dictionary definitions.  If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.

Dictionary definitions give the most basic denotation of a word without giving any of the connotations or baggage that go with it.

For example, a dictionary might define "feminism" as " the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities."

That sounds harmless enough, doesn't it?  Should Catholics call ourselves feminists, then?  I hope that everyone here recognizes that the answer is "No".

To find out what the word "vegan" actually meant in practice, I went to the vegan society website.  This was a place to find out why people who call themselves "vegan" do so.  It was clear from this what the Catholic response should be.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on July 03, 2017, 12:27:26 PM
This diet is attached to a philosophy that is opposed to basic Catholic assumptions about God's creation.  Even if there were some good reason to eat that way (which is unlikely) it would be wrong to identify oneself with a anti-Catholic philosophy by calling oneself a vegan.
Indeed, one might just as well create a topic entitled, "Any Confucianists here?"
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jaynek on July 03, 2017, 01:01:32 PM
Indeed, one might just as well create a topic entitled, "Any Confucianists here?"

To be fair, it is more obvious that Catholics cannot be Confucianists since it clearly an ideology.  People might not realize what is involved in veganism, unless they had already encountered it. It is understandable that people might think that "vegan" is merely a dietary choice. You did a good thing by alerting everyone to the problem.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Arsenius on July 03, 2017, 01:28:15 PM
Indeed, one might just as well create a topic entitled, "Any Confucianists here?"

You do realize that Pope Pius XII reversed the Chinese Rites controversy and allowed for the public veneration of Confucius by Catholics, not to mention participation in veneration of ancestral tablets? If you can't be a Catholic Confucian you might as well say you can't be a Catholic Platonist or a Catholic Aristotelian. But then again...this IS Cathinfo. I wouldn't be surprised if some one held that view.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: jen51 on July 03, 2017, 02:11:40 PM
I followed a "vegan" diet for about 6 months about 6 years ago when I was working a very physically demanding, repetitive job. The work made arthritis flare up in my shoulder and it was nearly unbearable. In desperation I dove into research about healing arthritis naturally and several sources sung the praises of a "vegan" diet for such an ailment. So I switched, cold turkey, and within a week my shoulder was feeling better and within two weeks the pain was completely gone and continued to be as long as I kept it up.

So there is that, but...

"Vegan" absolutely is a political word. I had to wade through so much garbage and nonsense to find good recipes. Most vegans that I encountered (not personally, but through the internet) were vegan on principle, not because of diet alone. Vegans, as a political group of people, are so far removed from reality and the natural order (which God created as something good), that they embarrass themselves. Some are so rabid that they think people should be sentenced to death for hunting. You see where the "vegan" mindset leads? It's nonsensicle.

Now my diet is polar opposite. I follow the general principles of Weston A. Price, or you could say, a traditional diet with a lot of whole raw dairy, meat, saturated fats, fresh vegetables and fermented foods. When I got married and started having kids I again set to researching and was convinced that this was an excellent diet for women in their childbearing years who are pregnant, nursing, and hope to maintain good fertility. 

If I were to go back to that job (highly unlikely, God willing) I would go back to not consuming animal products without hesitation. But I wouldn't be vegan. I'll never be vegan.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on July 03, 2017, 03:11:06 PM
To be fair, it is more obvious that Catholics cannot be Confucianists since it clearly an ideology.  People might not realize what is involved in veganism, unless they had already encountered it. It is understandable that people might think that "vegan" is merely a dietary choice. You did a good thing by alerting everyone to the problem.
One could only say that until they were provided the information and...rejected it.  On this very topic multiple posters said simply that they rejected the Truth and would continue to have no problem with a Catholic being a vegan.  Such an attitude is not new here on CathInfo.  And it is sad.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jaynek on July 03, 2017, 03:43:05 PM
You do realize that Pope Pius XII reversed the Chinese Rites controversy and allowed for the public veneration of Confucius by Catholics, not to mention participation in veneration of ancestral tablets? If you can't be a Catholic Confucian you might as well say you can't be a Catholic Platonist or a Catholic Aristotelian. But then again...this IS Cathinfo. I wouldn't be surprised if some one held that view.
Pope Pius XII allowed for a few specific customs associated with Confucianism to be practiced by Catholics on the grounds that these were secular rather than religious customs.
He did not say that Confucianism as a whole was compatible with Catholicism. This description from the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that it is not.


Quote
In Confucianism there is much to admire. It has taught a noble conception of the supreme Heaven-god. It has inculcated a remarkably high standard of morality. It has prompted, as far as it knew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) how, the refining influence of literary education (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05295b.htm) and of polite conduct. But it stands today encuмbered with the serious defects that characterize the imperfect civilization of its early development. The association of T'ien with innumerable nature-spirits, spirits of sun, moon, and stars, of hills and fields and rivers, the superstitious (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm) use of divination by means of stalks and tortoise shells, and the crude notion that the higher spirits, together with the souls (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of the dead, are regaled by splendid banquets and food-offerings, cannot stand the test of intelligent modern criticism. Nor can a religion answer fully to the religious needs of the heart which withdraws from the active participation of the people the solemn worship of the deity, which has little use of prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm), which recognizes no such thing as grace, which has no definite teaching in regard to the future life. As a social system it has lifted the Chinese to an intermediate grade of culture, but has blocked for ages all further progress. In its rigid insistence on rites and customs that tend to perpetuate the patriarchal system with its attendant evils of polygamy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02564a.htm) and divorce (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm), of excessive seclusion and repression of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), of an undue hampering of individual freedom, Confucianism stands in painful contrast with progressive Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) civilization.
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04223b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04223b.htm)

There are some ideas in Confucianism that are consistent with Catholicism and many that are not.  To call oneself a Confucian Catholic would be unclear and confusing.  It seems like it would be imprudent in most situations.  Pius XII did not say anything to suggest that it was a good idea.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Nadir on July 06, 2017, 05:34:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: graceseeker on July 21, 2017, 02:42:29 PM
long-time vegans end up dead before they reach 60

I get goofy when i have not had meat in a period of time... something like 1 day. 

I dont think (on the other hand) that the protein/fat diet (Atkins) is healthy long-term. Maybe for a short period of time (few days) it is OK but also age and general health should be considered before going on that or any diet. 

I have studied such things for some time.. or used to. I got kind of bored and disillusioned b/c in the end, as Jesus said it is what comes out of our mouth not what goes in that makes us "unclean"

There was the Passover so we know Jesus did not condemn eating animals 
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on July 22, 2017, 06:24:29 PM
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.  
Title: "Cowboy caviar" link to new topic/Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: AlligatorDicax on July 23, 2017, 03:00:35 PM
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

"Cowboy caviar"?  Does it have, um, unusual ingredients that would provoke a native of the Vegan Solar System to violence?  To readers of your reply who'd never even heard of the dish--including me--you gave not even 1 contextual clue about what kind of dish we should expect it to be.

So I did the straightforward Internet research, then created a new topic devoted to it.  Which, it's worth noting, with a little initiative, could've been a topic you could call your own[†], even if interest is fleeting:

    "Cowboy Caviar--Not what you might guess!"
    <https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/cowboy-caviar/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/cowboy-caviar/)>.

-------
Note †: Perhaps it'll serve as a lesson in productive participation & response in Internet forums.  Or maybe not.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 23, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
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.
.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on July 26, 2017, 07:13:16 PM
long-time vegans end up dead before they reach 60
Source?
I get goofy when i have not had meat in a period of time... something like 1 day.
The average American eats about ½ lb. of meat a day!
as Jesus said it is what comes out of our mouth not what goes in that makes us "unclean"
That doesn't mean we can eat whatever. It pertains to the capital sin of gluttony not to eat healthily.
Title: Catholic teaching on Cruelty to Animals
Post by: Geremia on July 26, 2017, 07:21:09 PM
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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm)"):
Quote
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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm)," 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:
Quote
It is perfectly true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that obligations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) and duties (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05215a.htm) are between moral persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of the moral obligations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) which we owe to one another; but we owe a seven-fold obligation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) to the Creator of those animals. Our obligation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) and moral duty (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05215a.htm) is to Him who made them and if we wish to know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the limit and the broad outline of our obligation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm), I say at once it is His nature and His perfections (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm), 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), 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).
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on July 26, 2017, 07:23:33 PM
A Catholic can certainly be a vegan, as long as it is for the correct reasons.
That is, as long as he does not grant animals "rights" equal or greater than those of humans
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on July 26, 2017, 08:30:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: "Cowboy caviar" link to new topic/Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: jen51 on July 27, 2017, 01:56:27 PM
"Cowboy caviar"?  Does it have, um, unusual ingredients that would provoke a native of the Vegan Solar System to violence?  To readers of your reply who'd never even heard of the dish--including me--you gave not even 1 contextual clue about what kind of dish we should expect it to be.

So I did the straightforward Internet research, then created a new topic devoted to it.  Which, it's worth noting, with a little initiative, could've been a topic you could call your own[†], even if interest is fleeting:

    "Cowboy Caviar--Not what you might guess!"
    <https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/cowboy-caviar/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/cowboy-caviar/)>.

-------
Note †: Perhaps it'll serve as a lesson in productive participation & response in Internet forums.  Or maybe not.
This is one of my favorite recipes. I've been making it for years! Texas Caviar, Cowboy Caviar... same thing. It's a pretty popular dip.
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/96563/classic-texas-caviar/
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on July 28, 2017, 05:33:19 PM
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 (https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/CompassionForAnimalsedited.pdf):
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Geremia on July 28, 2017, 05:57:01 PM
The WHO, which actually considers the estrogen-progesterone combined oral contraceptive ("The Pill") a Group 1 carcinogen in humans (for breast cancer), classifies consumption of processed meats as sufficiently linked to colon and rectal cancers (source (https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Table4.pdf)).
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: TKGS on July 28, 2017, 08:03:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jaynek on July 30, 2017, 07:59:48 PM
The WHO, which actually considers the estrogen-progesterone combined oral contraceptive ("The Pill") a Group 1 carcinogen in humans (for breast cancer), classifies consumption of processed meats as sufficiently linked to colon and rectal cancers (source (https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Table4.pdf)).
There is a big difference between claiming that processed meats are unhealthy and claiming that all meat is unhealthy.  
I am not at all surprised that processed meats are linked to diseases.  I expect that other kinds of processed foods are too.  Food tends to be best for us when in its natural state.  
This is not an argument against meat eating in general.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Kimchi Ninja on September 26, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
😆 somthing funny
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: tradosaurus on November 13, 2017, 08:11:15 AM
I am trying to follow a vegan (plant based) diet after watching many youtube videos by long term plant based advocates, Dr. Neil Bernard, Dr. John Mcdougall, Dr. Esselstyn, and others.

I've also seen many videos of how cows, pigs, and chickens are treated before being slaughtered.   I think anyone who advocated meat and dairy should be required to visit these facilities.

Cancer and heart disease are directly related to consumption of meat and dairy.  As Dr. Esselstyn states "Heart disease need never to exist and is 100% preventable"
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jaynek on November 13, 2017, 08:26:53 AM
I am trying to follow a vegan (plant based) diet after watching many youtube videos by long term plant based advocates, Dr. Neil Bernard, Dr. John Mcdougall, Dr. Esselstyn, and others.

I've also seen many videos of how cows, pigs, and chickens are treated before being slaughtered.   I think anyone who advocated meat and dairy should be required to visit these facilities.

Cancer and heart disease are directly related to consumption of meat and dairy.  As Dr. Esselstyn states "Heart disease need never to exist and is 100% preventable"
I agree that there are serious problems with conventional meat production at this time.  This is why I buy my meat from alternative sources.  

The dietary factor with the most impact on cancer and heart disease is consumption of sugar.  This would be the thing to change for those concerned about their health.

Neither of your points is an especially good reason to be vegan.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: tradosaurus on November 13, 2017, 08:32:35 AM
I agree that there are serious problems with conventional meat production at this time.  This is why I buy my meat from alternative sources.  
The dietary factor with the most impact on cancer and heart disease is consumption of sugar.  This would be the thing to change for those concerned about their health.
Neither of your points is an especially good reason to be vegan.
Read or watch information by these Doctors.  There have been studies with patients that have eliminated heart disease by adhering to a plant based diet.  Refined sugar is bad in large doses but natural sugars are inherently good (those in fruits).  
Educate yourself first before cementing an opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study)
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jaynek on November 13, 2017, 08:52:20 AM
I hope you won't take it as correcting you if I cite an article:

Quote
Over a year ago I wrote about  (https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=385), a book by T. Colin Campbell and his son based on a huge epidemiologic study of diet and health done in China. The book’s major thesis is that we could prevent or cure most disease (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, bone, kidney, eye and other diseases) by eating a whole foods plant-based diet, drastically reducing our protein intake, and avoiding meat and dairy products entirely.

I noticed a number of things in the book that bothered me. I found evidence of sloppy citations, cherry-picked references, omission of data that contradicted the thesis, and recommendations that went beyond the data. I concluded:
Quote
He marshals a lot of evidence, but is it sufficient to support his recommendation that everyone give up animal protein entirely, including dairy products? I don’t think so.
The China Study involved 367 variables and 8,000 correlations. I said I would leave it to others to comment on the study design and the statistical analysis, and now someone has done just that (http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/). Denise Minger devoted a month and a half to examining the raw data to see how closely Campbell’s claims aligned with the data he drew from; she found many weaknesses and errors.
Campbell says
Quote
Plasma cholesterol… is positively associated with most cancer mortality rates. Plasma cholesterol is positively associated with animal protein intake and inversely associated with plant protein intake.
The data do show that cholesterol is positively associated with various cancers, that cholesterol is positively associated with animal protein, and that cholesterol is negatively associated with plant protein. So by indirect deduction they assume that animal protein is associated with cancers and that reducing intake is protective. But if you compare animal protein intake directly with cancer, there are as many negative correlations as positive, and not one of those correlations reaches a level of statistical significance. Comparing dietary plant protein to various types of cancer, there are many more positive correlations and one of them does show strong statistical significance. The variable “death from all cancers” is four times as strongly associated with plant protein as with animal protein. And Campbell fails to mention an important confounder: cholesterol is higher in geographic areas with a higher incidence of schistosomiasis and hepatitis B infection, both risk factors for cancer.

Campbell says breast cancer is associated with dietary fat (which is associated with animal protein intake). The data show a non-significant association with dietary fat, but stronger (still non-significant) associations with several other factors and a significant association with wine, alcohol, and blood glucose level. The (non-significant) association of breast cancer with legume intake is virtually identical to the (non-significant) association with dietary fat. Animal protein itself shows a weaker correlation with breast cancer than light-colored vegetables, legume intake, fruit, and a number of other purportedly healthy plant foods.)

He indicts animal protein as being correlated with cardiovascular disease, but fails to mention that plant protein is more strongly correlated and wheat protein is far, far more strongly correlated. The China Study data show the opposite of what Campbell claims: animal protein doesn’t correspond with more disease, even in the highest animal food-eating counties.
These are just a couple of examples. Minger found many more, which she describes in her long article, complete with impressive graphs. Her exposé is well worth reading in its entirety, if only as a demonstration of how to think about epidemiologic data.

Minger goes on to reveal gaping logical holes in Campbell’s own research on casein, a milk protein that he believes causes cancer. He showed that casein was associated with cancer when given in isolation to lab animals, but he projects those results onto humans and onto all sources of animal protein. Other animal proteins have been shown to have anti-cancer effects, and the results of a normal diet containing multiple protein sources are likely to be very different from his casein-only studies.
Minger concludes
Quote
I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.
She is being polite.

This is a cautionary tale. It shows how complex issues can be over-simplified into meaninglessness, how epidemiologic data can be misinterpreted and mislead us, and how a researcher can approach a problem with preconceptions that allow him to see only what he wants to see. The China Study was embraced by vegetarians because it seemed to support their beliefs with strong evidence. Minger has shown that that evidence is largely illusory. The issues raised are important and deserve further study by unbiased scientists. At any rate, one thing is clear: the China Study is not sufficient reason to recommend drastic reductions in protein intake, let alone total avoidance of meat and dairy foods.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/)
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Jovita on November 13, 2017, 09:27:19 AM
Refined sugars are poison much like alcohol is to our system. I was convinced over 20 years ago after reading William Duffy's Sugar Blues and other research when my 'doctor' told me there was nothing I could do to prevent my hypoglycemia from becoming full blown diabetes. I do not have either malady today. My doctor has been Dr. McDougall, aforementioned. I am also glad to say I do not suffer maladies that my age-mates suffer from and am not on any medications. Which of themselves can be toxic. Read Dr. Leo Galland's Four Pillars of Healing.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: jen51 on November 13, 2017, 11:17:54 AM

I've also seen many videos of how cows, pigs, and chickens are treated before being slaughtered.   I think anyone who advocated meat and dairy should be required to visit these facilities.

There are some facilities that treat animals terribly, and shame on them. But they are the minority. I was born and raised on a farm that produced cattle, I have worked in the beef industry and have visited many farms in the Midwest. My husband is the same. He currently works both at a convential dairy and a raw milk dairy. The average farmer and rancher cares for their livestock, and goes to large efforts of work and expense to make sure they are healthy and happy as can be reasonable while still making a profit. YouTube is rife with videos using the footage from unethical farms to drive an agenda that is both politically and morally degenerate. Docuмentaries like food inc drive me up the wall. This kind of media is undoubtedly written and produced by people who know nothing of the ins and outs of farming, or Have not spoken with or observed what really goes on with MOST livestock. And you know what this creates? Assenine laws created by people in corporate offices that have likely never stepped foot on a farm. This puts unnecessary burden on the farmer, especially the smaller farmers. For this reason many mom and pop operations throw in the towel and the corporate farms gain in momentum. That is how we get cows getting milked by robots, and dairy coops that regulate what you can and cannot do, all with the guise of health and safety. 
Veganism IS, to its core, politically charged. If doing it for health reasons, please be cautious of this.
On a different note, the most current research is showing that heart issues are not in fact related to meat and dairy. Much of this research is spurned by the government and big pharma, as it can and will make their pocket books much more thin. I'd suggest reading some information on the Weston A. Price website. They offer a lot of information on research based nutrition and sound analysis on the politics of food. 
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Meg on November 13, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
There are good posts on both sides of the issue.

I was a vegetarian for about 25 years, and a vegan for some of that time, due to a dairy allergy.
But after converting to Catholicism, I began to eat meat again, though not very often.  I love fish. Yummy!

There have been Catholics such as Franciscans who have consumed very little or no meat. That's okay, IMO. But the average person does need vitamin B-12, which can only been had from dairy products, or in a supplement form.

Zinc, to my knowledge, is only available from meat, or supplement form. Some vegetarians are low in zinc, which can lead to health problems.

If one is suffering from cancer, or from an auto-immune disease, then it might be a good idea to lower one's consumption of meat, and eat natural foods. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Matto on November 13, 2017, 12:01:55 PM
I am trying to follow a vegan (plant based) diet after watching many youtube videos by long term plant based advocates, Dr. Neil Bernard, Dr. John Mcdougall, Dr. Esselstyn, and others.

. . .

Cancer and heart disease are directly related to consumption of meat and dairy.  As Dr. Esselstyn states "Heart disease need never to exist and is 100% preventable"
I am eating a lot less meat and dairy and eggs now. I am trying to lose weight and also be more simple and penitential. I have had success with a high-carb mostly plant food diet and at times eating less food like during lent. But if I did stop eating animal foods completely I would not call myself a vegan because of the political baggage. I plan on continuing to eat how I am eating when I am done losing weight although I figure I will have to eat a larger quantity of food than I am eating now.

As for reasons to be a vegan I would say it can be good to eat less meat like many of the monks and saints did. As for the arguments the vegans make the one that I think is best is that it takes a lot more farmland to support an animal food based diet than it does to support a vegan diet. So if everyone were to suddenly change to an atkins type diet there would not be enough farmland to feed everyone. So because of limited resources most people will have to eat their bread or their bowl of rice anyway.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: jen51 on November 13, 2017, 12:58:09 PM
...It takes a lot more farmland to support an animal food based diet than it does to support a vegan diet. So if everyone were to suddenly change to an atkins type diet there would not be enough farmland to feed everyone. So because of limited resources most people will have to eat their bread or their bowl of rice anyway.
This is a good point, and one that ought to be considered.
Humans have been eating grains since the beginning. It takes far less resources to grow a pound of wheat than a pound of meat. The problem with grains these days is that we most often eat it in a refined form, and it lacks the nutrients to support optimal health. Too, modern grain does not have the same genetic makeup as the grain of our ancestors. And lastly, our culture has lost the knowledge of how to properly prepare whole grains. Our ancestors knew that grain needed to be soaked or fermented before eating or it causes poor digestion, poor nutrient absorption, and can lead to serious ailments.
IMO the best nutritional plan is to eat a well balanced diet. Cutting out whole food groups isn't the way to go.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Nadir on November 13, 2017, 02:23:09 PM
But the average person does need vitamin B-12, which can only been had from dairy products, or in a supplement form.

Zinc, to my knowledge, is only available from meat, or supplement form. Some vegetarians are low in zinc, which can lead to health problems.

If one is suffering from cancer, or from an auto-immune disease, then it might be a good idea to lower one's consumption of meat, and eat natural foods. Just my opinion.
B12 is available from green leafy vegies, cauliflower and fermented foods.
Zinc is available from Pumpkin Seeds, Chickpeas, Cocoa Powder, Cashews, Kefir, Yoghurt, Mushrooms, Spinach. 
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Meg on November 13, 2017, 02:27:13 PM
B12 is available from green leafy vegies, cauliflower and fermented foods.
Zinc is available from Pumpkin Seeds, Chickpeas, Cocoa Powder, Cashews, Kefir, Yoghurt, Mushrooms, Spinach.

In sufficient quantities for the minimum daily allowance, from what a person would normally consume in a daily diet?
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Nadir on November 13, 2017, 03:02:54 PM
In sufficient quantities for the minimum daily allowance, from what a person would normally consume in a daily diet?
I don't know. I never even think about minimum daily allowances. I was just letting you that there are non-meat and non-dairy alternatives.

Quote
vitamin B-12, which can only been had from dairy products, or in a supplement form…Zinc, to my knowledge, is only available from meat, or supplement form.

Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Meg on November 13, 2017, 03:29:45 PM
I don't know. I never even think about minimum daily allowances. I was just letting you that there are non-meat and non-dairy alternatives.

Okay, you're right. I was wrong to say that zinc could only be had from meat. However, most vegetarians that I know don't really give much thought to taking in enough zinc in one day. You'd have to consume 1 and 1/3 cups of pumpkin seeds a day to get enough zinc from pumpkin seeds alone.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: tradosaurus on November 13, 2017, 04:03:03 PM
In sufficient quantities for the minimum daily allowance, from what a person would normally consume in a daily diet?
The B12 argument is used as a tactic to convince people that meat and dairy are necessary.  
Humans historically got B12 from eating vegetables, fruits and drinking fresh water from springs and streams, or by farming and then eating without washing their hands. Since we no longer do these things, “natural” plant based sources of Vitamin B-12 have dropped out of modern life.
In the modern day, our produce is heavily sanitized and chemically cleaned to meet retail standards, and subsequently the B12 (bacteria) removed.
The "natural" way of consuming B12 - from unwashed vegetables and unfiltered water - isn't safe for humans because there are also other less desirable bacterias present in these places such as E. coli and salmonella. So in the modern world it's much safer to just get our B12 from a supplement.
So what is B12 and why is it important?
Wikepedia:  "B12 is a water-soluble vitamin that has a key role in the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system via the synthesis of myelin, and the formation of red blood cells. It is one of eight B vitamins."
Even meat is fortified with B12 these days, as it is unnaturally raised and animals become deficient. That said, cows and pigs tend to eat their own poop (accidentally mostly,) so they tend to always retain some B12.


So, go vegan and take a B12 supplement as needed.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: tradosaurus on November 13, 2017, 04:22:49 PM
I hope you won't take it as correcting you if I cite an article:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/)
You can certainly find critics of any study, pro or con on meat vs plant based.   I'm convinced that meat and dairy are harmful based on my own experience as well as the appearance of plant based practitioners.   I have more energy at 52 and can play full court basketball with younger guys.  The plant based practitioners are generally slim and look healthy.   My blood pressure was the lowest I have ever remember (112/69).  
You rarely if ever see an obese person eating a plant based diet.  While any obese person is most likely a meat and dairy consumer.
The fact that it takes more land and water resources to provide meat and dairy products should be enough to give it up.  The fact that God did not design humans to be carnivores should be another. 
It's really a no-brainer. 
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 13, 2017, 04:54:09 PM
The B12 argument is used as a tactic to convince people that meat and dairy are necessary.  
Humans historically got B12 from eating vegetables, fruits and drinking fresh water from springs and streams, or by farming and then eating without washing their hands. Since we no longer do these things, “natural” plant based sources of Vitamin B-12 have dropped out of modern life.
In the modern day, our produce is heavily sanitized and chemically cleaned to meet retail standards, and subsequently the B12 (bacteria) removed.
The "natural" way of consuming B12 - from unwashed vegetables and unfiltered water - isn't safe for humans because there are also other less desirable bacterias present in these places such as E. coli and salmonella. So in the modern world it's much safer to just get our B12 from a supplement.
So what is B12 and why is it important?
Wikepedia:  "B12 is a water-soluble vitamin that has a key role in the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system via the synthesis of myelin, and the formation of red blood cells. It is one of eight B vitamins."
Even meat is fortified with B12 these days, as it is unnaturally raised and animals become deficient. That said, cows and pigs tend to eat their own poop (accidentally mostly,) so they tend to always retain some B12.


So, go vegan and take a B12 supplement as needed.
.
You could get your B12 supplement by eating cow and pig dung. Go for it. That would make you a good vegan.
.
Title: Re: Any vegans here?
Post by: Nadir on November 13, 2017, 05:51:22 PM
Personally, I've never thought of "vegan" as a political term, rather just as a description (a person who does not eat animal products of any kind).  However, that's just an argument over semantics.  
There's more to veganism than your description. I am not against a vegetarian diet, if it is called for, but veganism is a different matter. It tends to both political and religious quirks - a philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_status_of_animals).
A vegan is one who won't wear leather or fur shoes or clothes, or won't tolerate beeswax candles.

Veganism is not Christian. God gave us animals for our use and benefit.