Moral Dilema

[faithcecelia]

I have been vegetarian since age 9 (22 years) and while I was at Quidenham they catered for me. Now I am looking to enter again elsewhere I am really torn between my morals and belief that it is wrong to eat God's creatures, and feeling that I ought to just accept what I am given, especially now I cannot have dairy. What should I do?

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1305184138' post='2240415']
I have been vegetarian since age 9 (22 years) and while I was at Quidenham they catered for me. Now I am looking to enter again elsewhere I am really torn between my morals and belief that it is wrong to eat God's creatures, and feeling that I ought to just accept what I am given, especially now I cannot have dairy. What should I do?
[/quote]

Considering that this matter of diet is not a moral law nor something demanded by the Church, but a personal choice, I think that it would be best to humbly to the practices of your community. That being said, there's a chance that your community will find no difficulty with providing with such dietary choices- it's worth asking about, as long as you do so with a willingness to accept community norms if that's what they ask of you.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, don't some communities abide by a vegetarian diet? I think the Trappists do. And perhaps Carmelites do as well during penitential seasons? I'm a little fuzzy on that so I'm not sure.

But I'd say that, if it came down to it... I'd humbly accept the community dietary norms. There's a verse in one of St. Paul's letters where he encourages folks to abide by Jewish dietary laws so as not to cause scandal, even though not abiding was certainly a moral choice.

[OnlySunshine]

When I applied to a community, I stayed in their convent for three days and was expected to eat properly--good portions (I had to help myself, so that was difficult) and accept what was given to me. The Superior handed me a regular Coke and I asked if they had Diet Coke instead, and she told me that they did not. I was told afterward that the Sisters generally don't ask for something other than what they are given. I tell you that it was very difficult for me, not because I didn't want to eat, but because I was nervous the entire time I was there and hardly ate anything. I look back now and see that I should have tried harder. The Superior mentioned several times that I needed to eat more but I tried to explain to her that I was on a diet. Obviously, I should not have been while I was there.

I think when I discern with another community, I'm going to work hard to conform to the community's norms. I keep telling myself that they have them for a good reason and that it is important for Sisters to eat healthy.

I do see your reasoning, however, since I was a vegetarian (alternating with vegan) for 2 years. I believe that it is written in the rule of St. Albert for Carmelites to perpetually abstain from meat other than fish. I know that some monasteries can get a special dispensation as I was in contact with one that had aged members who needed to eat meat for their health so everyone in the monastery ate meat as well.

[faithcecelia]

Yes, Carmelites claim to be vegetarian, but aren't as they eat fish. Some do now eat meat as well. I think I could probably cope but know it will be a struggle to actually get it down me - the thought of eating something like pilchards makes my stomach flip! Each community I have mentioned being veggie to has said they would cater for me, but I suppose its more a case of whether I decide to raise it with them at all. I certainly would never express preferences or likes and dislikes unless I was asked directly, but I don't consider vegetarianism pickiness, its a moral choice. I was vegan before I entered, had been for years, so I have already back down and eat eggs plus occasional goats coagulated milk/milk as I was found to be dairy intolerant.


No idea why this posted 3 times, sorry, it wasnt intentional - can someone remove the others maybe please?

[LaPetiteSoeur]

I'd comply with your order, but ask. I mean, what's the harm?

You mentioned something about dairy. If you are lactose intolerant or have an allergy, the sisters won't make you eat it/drink it.

[Cherie]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1305184680' post='2240417']
Considering that this matter of diet is not a moral law nor something demanded by the Church, but a personal choice, I think that it would be best to humbly to the practices of your community.
[/quote]

This.

I was a vegetarian for 5 years starting when I was age 11. I couldn't bear the thought of [i]eating[/i] an animal of any kind. To me, it was cruelty.

I remember visiting a community when I was 16. They were offering chicken quesadillas for dinner, and I remember thinking it's not right for me to say, "Oh, I can't eat that, I'm a vegetarian," especially because as TB says, it's [i]not[/i] a matter of moral law. It was my own private opinion, and if I was being picky about what I ate, what else would I be picky about when it came to religious life? Wouldn't it be better to comply out of a spirit of obedience? So for me, that was it. From that moment, I stopped being a vegetarian.

If it helps, remember in Acts 10:9-6 how St. Peter had a vision of the blanket with all sorts of animals in it? Our Lord told him to kill and eat. So it might help to remember that while for some people it's difficult to imagine eating a creature, it [i]isn't[/i] against God's law at all; in fact, it seems that Our Lord actually encourages it.

Anyway, just my two cents as a former vegetarian who gave it up in order to prepare myself for religious life!

[ACS67]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1305206471' post='2240455']
and if I was being picky about what I ate, what else would I be picky about when it came to religious life? Wouldn't it be better to comply out of a spirit of obedience? [/quote]

Agree 100%. I like to say "Change the "me" to a "we"...just flip the "M". Relgious life is built on community not individualism.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1305212216' post='2240467']
Agree 100%. I like to say "Change the "me" to a "we"...just flip the "M". Relgious life is built on community not individualism.
[/quote]


I understand what you are saying but I would also like to add that a community is made up of individuals and that we are not clones or Borg, nor do we lose who we are - that would be to spit at God's wisdom in creating each one of as unique and individual in the first place. A rose is a rose, and a gardenia is a gardenia. They both smell sweet and are pleasing to God but they express their beauty in individual ways as part of a garden. There is a danger sometimes of a 'cult mentality' towards religious life, which I understand well having lived in a cult in the early 70s, although we didn't call it a cult at the time. It wasn't until I was out of it that I understand the nature of too much 'groupthink'. I am not saying that all religious life is a cult, but it does have many similarities and care needs to be taken that emphasis isn't put on the exterior life as much as the interior life or there is a danger that it can become a cult, however benign in intention.

If and when God allows me to return to religious life, I hope to do so as myself, an individual, who puts my own needs aside for the good of others, but who also recognizes that to deny who I am is to deny the gift that God has given me in granting me life. Jesus accepted each of his Apostles for their own unique nature, and even catered to this - for example, he was patient and forgiving with Peter and tolerant of Thomas' doubts to the point of satifsfying them.

If a person has genuine needs (not whims or fancies or simply desires), then these should be acknowledged and addressed as a valued member of the community. I prefer to think of a community as a family, because it seems more personal, and allows for individualism, while still promoting the ideal of each member considering the welfare of the others ahead of their own welfare wherever possible, but allowing others the opportunity to serve them as well when necessary (for example, St Therese required care from her sisters when she was ill).

I don't mean to knitpick here but I am sensitive to this topic from some bad experiences in religious life. That does not mean that I don't see the value and the point of trying to surrender one's desires, simply that we must not go to extremes in our attitudes or we risk succumbing to a form of scruples in denying ourselves even the fact of being human!

No offence to anyone intended with these comments.

[ACS67]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1305292152' post='2240812']
I understand what you are saying but I would also like to add that a community is made up of individuals and that we are not clones or Borg, nor do we lose who we are - that would be to spit at God's wisdom in creating each one of as unique and individual in the first place. A rose is a rose, and a gardenia is a gardenia. They both smell sweet and are pleasing to God but they express their beauty in individual ways as part of a garden. There is a danger sometimes of a 'cult mentality' towards religious life, which I understand well having lived in a cult in the early 70s, although we didn't call it a cult at the time. It wasn't until I was out of it that I understand the nature of too much 'groupthink'. I am not saying that all religious life is a cult, but it does have many similarities and care needs to be taken that emphasis isn't put on the exterior life as much as the interior life or there is a danger that it can become a cult, however benign in intention.

If and when God allows me to return to religious life, I hope to do so as myself, an individual, who puts my own needs aside for the good of others, but who also recognizes that to deny who I am is to deny the gift that God has given me in granting me life. Jesus accepted each of his Apostles for their own unique nature, and even catered to this - for example, he was patient and forgiving with Peter and tolerant of Thomas' doubts to the point of satifsfying them.

If a person has genuine needs (not whims or fancies or simply desires), then these should be acknowledged and addressed as a valued member of the community. I prefer to think of a community as a family, because it seems more personal, and allows for individualism, while still promoting the ideal of each member considering the welfare of the others ahead of their own welfare wherever possible, but allowing others the opportunity to serve them as well when necessary (for example, St Therese required care from her sisters when she was ill).

I don't mean to knitpick here but I am sensitive to this topic from some bad experiences in religious life. That does not mean that I don't see the value and the point of trying to surrender one's desires, simply that we must not go to extremes in our attitudes or we risk succumbing to a form of scruples in denying ourselves even the fact of being human!

No offence to anyone intended with these comments.
[/quote]

I understand what you mean nunsense. Needs are one thing. Whims, fancies, and just being obstinate and/or whiney is quite another. I actually felt a bit uncomfortable with my initial reply and said so to faithcecelia on the other moral dilema thread. I think I came across a bit harsh.

There are some communities who seem to go to extremes on either end. Some are far too accommodating, not allowing the religious to be "confirgured and transfigured" (to borrow Bl. John Paul II's phrase) into Christ, instead preferring to allow one to "develop" as he/she sees fit. That seems not only dangerous and presumptuous it also seems to negate the "necessary" aceticism of the religious life, which in recent documents the Vatican has deemed a necessary part of the consecated life (I am speaking of The Essential Elements of the Religious Life, Verbi Sponsa, and also JPII Vita Consecrata). There has got to be a process of stripping away of the "old man" so to speak in order to conform more fully to Christ. I don't want my desires and whims accomodated. If I did, I would not be seeking to live and follow a rule in community. Thomas' doubts were satisfied yes, (for which he was softly rebuked by our Our Lord afterwards) for the sake of his conversion. Peter had to make up for his denial by thrice proclaiming his love for Our Lord. Something is always required of us if we are to follow Christ and I believe the biggest requirement is the giving up of our own will. Because often times it is not so much that I "cannot" do what is asked of me, it is that I "will not" do what is asked of me, whereby my will has superseded the will of God (in the form of my superior in religious life).

I will state though that I agree with you that some communities have been known to have a "cult" like mentality wherein they desire to strip individuality completely. I was on retreat at a convent in France (very traditional and "independent") where all the nuns who wore glasses were required to wear the same eyeglasses in order to avoid "individuality." That was odd to me. Very odd.

Your description above of what you desire in religious life sounds alot like the Benedictines at Regina Laudis. Perhaps you should try them.

In Christ,
ACS67

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1305299166' post='2240858']
I understand what you mean nunsense. Needs are one thing. Whims, fancies, and just being obstinate and/or whiney is quite another. I actually felt a bit uncomfortable with my initial reply and said so to faithcecelia on the other moral dilema thread. I think I came across a bit harsh.

There are some communities who seem to go to extremes on either end. Some are far too accommodating, not allowing the religious to be "confirgured and transfigured" (to borrow Bl. John Paul II's phrase) into Christ, instead preferring to allow one to "develop" as he/she sees fit. That seems not only dangerous and presumptuous it also seems to negate the "necessary" aceticism of the religious life, which in recent documents the Vatican has deemed a necessary part of the consecated life (I am speaking of The Essential Elements of the Religious Life, Verbi Sponsa, and also JPII Vita Consecrata). There has got to be a process of stripping away of the "old man" so to speak in order to conform more fully to Christ. I don't want my desires and whims accomodated. If I did, I would not be seeking to live and follow a rule in community. Thomas' doubts were satisfied yes, (for which he was softly rebuked by our Our Lord afterwards) for the sake of his conversion. Peter had to make up for his denial by thrice proclaiming his love for Our Lord. Something is always required of us if we are to follow Christ and I believe the biggest requirement is the giving up of our own will. Because often times it is not so much that I "cannot" do what is asked of me, it is that I "will not" do what is asked of me, whereby my will has superseded the will of God (in the form of my superior in religious life).

I will state though that I agree with you that some communities have been known to have a "cult" like mentality wherein they desire to strip individuality completely. I was on retreat at a convent in France (very traditional and "independent") where all the nuns who wore glasses were required to wear the same eyeglasses in order to avoid "individuality." That was odd to me. Very odd.

Your description above of what you desire in religious life sounds alot like the Benedictines at Regina Laudis. Perhaps you should try them.

In Christ,
ACS67
[/quote]

Yes, I've seen an example of what you mention as well, with some communities going 'too far' with that they call 'individuation' in an attempt to become 'fulfilled' in their vocation. So there are always extremes to be avoided. Because I was formed initially under the Rule of St Albert (a simple yet somehow complete statement of religious life in my mind), I really relate to his last phrase which states that we must use 'common sense' because 'common sense is the guide to the virtues'. But I have also discovered how true is that maxim 'common sense is uncommon' because so few people seem to have it or use it!

And despite Our Lord's rebukes to his disciples, He never tried to depersonalize them as human beings. A good example (and He was a perfect one) is always more effective than any words can ever be.

Your suggestion that I look into Regina Laudis has been made to me before, and I have looked at their website many times but despite whatever admiration I may have for them, I simply feel no connection with them whatsoever. Funny thing about attraction, it is a visceral event rather than an intellectual one because to all intents and purposes, they should appeal to me! I do think that Our Lord has a place for me in the UK though, and I am not sure why, but I have always been attracted to England, perhaps because I lived there when I was younger and working for the BBC World Service (radio news) - I just loved it so much and it felt like 'home' to me. Now whenever I think of England, I feel a pull to go back there. I am currently being drawn to two communities there with a possible third, but that one comes and goes so I think it is one of those places that I think I 'should' like for all the right reasons, but it doesn't really touch my heart.... so we will see. My discernment visits are hopefully going to be at the end of October. But thank you for your suggestion anyway!

[Sarah147]

I would just humbly accept what the Order follows.

Interestingly, the Tertiary Sisters of the FSI eat immitation meats, and they tasted pretty good. I assume the Superior is a vegetarian.

Edited May 13, 2011 by JoyfulLife

[JenDeMaria]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1305184138' post='2240415']
I have been vegetarian since age 9 (22 years) and while I was at Quidenham they catered for me. Now I am looking to enter again elsewhere I am really torn between my morals and belief that it is wrong to eat God's creatures, and feeling that I ought to just accept what I am given, especially now I cannot have dairy. What should I do?
[/quote]

I believe I can see where you're coming from -- I've been a vegetarian for about a decade and a half, now, and a vegan for 5 years. Vegetarianism was a big part of my life for a while and I even organized a vegan social group for 4 years that overlapped a little with my conversion to the Faith. There was a time when, in daydreaming about community life, I thought it would definitely be a bonus to enter a community like the Carmelites who are mostly vegetarian.

Having said that, I think that it is far better to sacrifice one's preferences to the traditions of the community. For one, a sacrifice of one's own will has greater value than a mortification like fasting, because we achieve a greater unity between ourselves and Christ in Gethsamene where he said "Not my will, but thine be done". If you entered a community and never mentioned your preference for vegetarian food, you'd be able to offer up a tremendous sacrifice at almost every meal -- a hidden one, too, which would be free from pride and showyness and net you a profundity of graces. That's the road that I would take, at any rate, though my ultimate decision in this area would definitely be secondary to choosing a community for reasons like fidelity and fervor.

I think the [url="http://http://carmelnet.org/chas/rule.htm"][url="http://carmelnet.org/chas/rule.htm://"]Carmelite Rule[/url][/url] (chapter 7) backs me up, too:

[quote][i]However, you are to eat whatever may have been given you in a common refectory, listening together meanwhile to a reading from Holy Scripture where that can be done without difficulty.[/quote][/i]

Regarding the "moral" aspect of your question, though: the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that "it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing" ([url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2417.htm"]CCC 2417[/url]). Animal sacrifice, which includes the eating of animal flesh, was an intrinsic part of the worship that formed the Catholic Church -- and it remains an intrinsic part of our worship in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in which Christ's own act of self sacrifice is represented in an unbloody manner and consumated anew when we participate in communion by eating the sacrificial lamb. To state that it is a [i]moral wrong[/i] to eat animals not only contradicts the teaching of the Church, it undermines an important aspect of the Church's liturgical foundation.