Author Topic: Cannibalism  (Read 819 times)

Barbara

Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2017, 05:21:30 PM »
I abstain from eating anyone on Fridays.
Mother of God, pray for us sinners.
 
The following users thanked this post: Mithrandylan, TKGS, 2Vermont, Nick, Cleves

Rubecorks

Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2017, 05:35:25 PM »
Catholic moral teaching has been handed down from the Apostoles. That means the teaching existed the same in all ages.

With varying levels of explication.

It is either traditionally explained this way or not.


If you don't know the answer, you should just leave it at that and find out first instead of putting ideas in peoples' heads.

This is the "Sacred Theology and Metaphysics" subforum, which is to be used "for serious-academic discussion of Catholic Theology or Philosophy."  If nowhere else, this is the part of the forum to present the perspectives of a variety of authors.

There is nothing academic about one sentence saying it "seems" and giving no reference or explanation. What is the earliest author you have that says cannibalism is not intrinsically evil?


St. Thomas is known for creating articles about all sorts of things, and when he doesn't create an article about something, yet mentions it in passing here and there, it is because the issue is a given nobody questions.

He treats it always as a given that it is unnatural like the homosexuality. Then this 1958 books comes along and tries to drop St. Thomas' name along with moderns to suggest somehow the one passing sentence is not against what St. Thomas wrote.

McHugh and Callan are well-respected and revered, pre-conciliar authorities, fully approbated. 

Why did they wait for 1958 to suddenly give one sentence that it "seems" like it, and give no explanation? By the way, imprimaturs are not considered fully approbated. Imprimaturs are permissions, and the permissions are often later withdrawn if a problem is found. 1958 was the worst year for imprimaturs.

Right away I said your question was pertinent. So obviously I plan on researching it.
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2017, 05:38:55 PM »
Now you're getting it!  Looking forward to seeing what you find.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 

TKGS

Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2017, 06:05:05 PM »
Why did they wait for 1958 to suddenly give one sentence that it "seems" like it, and give no explanation?

Cannibalism was never much of a problem in the Church until 1958 when, after the death of Pius XII, Catholics started eating their own.
 
The following users thanked this post: 2Vermont, Nick, Mysterium Fidei, Cleves

2Vermont

Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2017, 06:10:31 PM »
 ;D

LOL who would have thought a thread on Cannibalism would be so funny.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

tmw89

Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2017, 06:10:56 PM »
Before the actual (elusive) citation from St. Thomas on the topic is provided, I'd like to second the sentiment of Mithrandylan earlier in this thread: St. Thomas's understanding of cannibalism and McHugh & Callan's understanding of it are not per se equivalent.

But I also think it's important to note that the title of McHugh and Callan's work "Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities" need not give anyone "a bad feeling" in itself.  In the hundreds of years since St. Thomas, there has been a substantial body of literature produced concerning "Moral Theology," especially the work of St. Alphonsus Liguori and the extensive monographs concerning specific controversies in the field.  Fine and Catholic research did not stop hundreds of years ago; in Moral Theology, theologians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries produced their own fare number of contributions. Recourse to "the best modern authorities" by the authors with St. Thomas as foundation and guiding principle is perfectly fine.  There is no reason to presume "the best modern authorities" were "the best modernist authorities."

Anyway, we still need the pertinent quotation (and citation) from the Angelic Doctor to deduce how exactly he understood the concept.  Without that, further discussion invoking a memory of a text that cannot be substantiated is a waste of time.

And how can I ignore this:

Cannibalism was never much of a problem in the Church until 1958 when, after the death of Pius XII, Catholics started eating their own.

TKGS, this forum doesn't do pointless weekly/monthly user awards, but if it did, you'd have my vote for post of the month.   :clap:
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2017, 06:17:10 PM »
Long Pork - the other white meat  :o
"Now when [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.".      St. Francis de Sales.
 
The following users thanked this post: Cleves

Rubecorks

Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2017, 05:40:30 AM »
Now you're getting it!  Looking forward to seeing what you find.

No, I "got it" as soon as you asked. Remember when I said your question was pertinent?

I have verified that there is no articles on cannibalism in the Summa.

St. Thomas does mention the subject a few times, and it is always in the vein that it is simply unacceptable as a given.

Here is an excerpt mentioning it is unnatural the likes of bestality:

"it happens that something which is not natural to man, either in regard to reason, or in regard to the preservation of the body, becomes connatural to this individual man, on account of there being some corruption of nature in him. And this corruption may be either on the part of the body, -from some ailment; thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and vice versa,—or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in eating earth and coals (Ethic. v.) and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other suchlike things, which are not in accord with human nature. "

You really need to find something early to defend the passing sentence you found in the 1958 book to prove it is traditional. Dropping the names of McHugh and Callan, or the fact of the imprimatur, doesn't cut it. I can find you an example of an imprimatured book by Benzinger Brothers around 1905 that flatly contradicts the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and knowingly admitting it!  Such a book was not reprinted, but because of our digital age, these books that should have remained out of circulation are now becoming available again.

I want to remind the jokers that this is a section for "serious-academic discussion". Can we keep the rule?

« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 05:44:15 AM by Rubecorks »
 

tmw89

Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2017, 06:28:39 AM »
I want to remind the jokers that this is a section for "serious-academic discussion". Can we keep the rule?

Given that neither administrator had a problem with those posts, I'll thank you to not mini-mod here.
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, Cleves

tmw89

Re: Cannibalism
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2017, 06:39:06 AM »
You really need to find something early to defend the passing sentence you found in the 1958 book to prove it is traditional.

On the contrary, you have yet to demonstrate McHugh and Callan is not traditional, as -- once again -- this excerpt from St. Thomas...

[ . . . ] thus some take pleasure in eating earth and coals (Ethic. v.) and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other suchlike things, which are not in accord with human nature. "

...does not clearly show that the cannibalism St. Thomas treats in passing is the same as that discussed in McHugh and Callan.  St. Thomas treats the topic as "from custom," and the practitioners "take pleasure" in it, whereas McHugh and Callan say it is lawful only in "extreme necessity," and emphasize "it is not lawful to kill human beings in order to eat them," in obvious contrast to those who consume human flesh "from custom."  There is no contradiction between these two sources to anyone here but you.