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:

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/

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!

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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”.

"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.

...
"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.

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.

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.

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.

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 how, the refining influence of literary education 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 use of divination by means of stalks and tortoise shells, and the crude notion that the higher spirits, together with the souls 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, 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 and divorce, of excessive seclusion and repression of women, of an undue hampering of individual freedom, Confucianism stands in painful contrast with progressive Christian civilization.

  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.