Question: have any of you eaten original recipe KFC? Because if you do, you know that it's cruel to treat such delicious birds in such a way as to make them a disgusting, greesy mess.

Thanks! May God bless you!

Again thank you Nick.
I was hoping to read more than just the quote. I will also do some looking later when I have chance.
I have asked to borrow the book GOD IN THE WORLD so I can read the section in which Cardinal Ratzinger addresses the issue.
I would like a better context for both quotes.
I still feel exactly the same though. I know you, Karen and Jim have defined knowingly eating at KFC as sinful but after reading the bible quotes I posted above and the CCC I still disagree.
I repect your passion for the issue and your honesty but I just don't see animals the way do.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

I knew in advance that sooner or later someone would try to put out an idea that vegetarianism is somehow better that eating meat. And I was right.
1) Where did anybody put out this idea on this board? (If you're referring to me, read again; I never made such a claim).
Any pro veg "research' being put out always has some hidden agenda behind it.
2) How do factual statements about issues within factory-farming constitute as "research"?
3) It's almost as if any group advancing a thought to be taken seriously, they ought to have not embraced the thought they are advancing. This makes no sense. Using that same logic, how do you expect Catholic apologists to spread the Gospel, since their intention is to spread the Catholic Gospel?
I was given a pamphlet that stated that all the wars in history were because of meat. (And I thought they were over religion ;-) )
4) And... ?
I never stated that anyone who is against cruelty of animals is a nut or a secret agent working for PETA either.
Congratulations. Thank you. But your posts strike me as drenched in the logical fallacy of "Guilty By Association." Otherwise, why focus so intently on vegetarianism as an issue, and not once addressing factory-farming?

I did not set up any straw man.
I knew in advance that sooner or later someone would try to put out an idea that vegetarianism is somehow better that eating meat. And I was right. Any pro veg "research' being put out always has some hidden agenda behind it. I was given a pamphlet that stated that all the wars in history were because of meat. (And I thought they were over religion ;-) )
I never stated that anyone who is against cruelty of animals is a nut or a secret agent working for PETA either.

I did a massive Google search. It appears that Pope John Paul II delivered a public address in January 1990 where he said such, but I could not find a reference to the exact date. Sad to say, the Vatican website (and most periodicals) do not have listings of his public addresses. But this line is quoted all over the Internet, by so many sources that I have to take it as credible.
Apparently, this quote was used in a "Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare", plus a good history of the Catholic perspective of such issues, at this site: http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html
Also, this article was a reproduction of the Italian article that referred to the quote earliest, as it was interviewing a priest who was heavily into animal causes, opening the doors of his parish to pets and blessing them twice a year:
http://www.dreamshore.net/rococo/pope.html

Nick,
Thank you for the documentation. Any ideas about the quotes attributed to JP II?
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Inocencio...
Going to Matthew Scully's website (who's a prominent conservative and former speechwriter for George W. Bush...)(http://www.matthewscully.com/factory_farm_meat.htm), he references the book "God And the World"--the 2002 interview book between then-Cardinal Ratzinger and German journalist Peter Seewald. A quote: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, leader of the Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked recently to weigh in on these very questions. Animals, he told German journalist Peter Seewald, must be respected as our "companions in creation." While it is licit to use them for food, "we cannot just do whatever we want with them. ... Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.
That said, only you can decide for yourself if the mounting evidence against KFC's methods can be ethically curtailed, or if it is a harsh necessity to keep the economics of mass-marketing a particular food brand (and an absolute necessity) afloat. I'm convinced that, the more that one discovers about the ethics of factory farming, it will change one's attitudes about such.

Karen,
I would like to read the actual text of what the wikipedia article claims Cardinal Ratzinger said, do you know where I can find it? I am putting less and less stock in wikipedia entries.
The source of the article is goveg.com (is this a PETA website?) and makes this claim about JP II;
Compassion for animals was also a prominent theme in John Paul II’s papacy. Pope John Paul proclaimed that “the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren.” He went on to say that all animals are “fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect” and that they are “as near to God as men are.”
I would like to read the actual text of the quotes for context if you know where they can be found please post a link.
I thank you for you comments, but I still disagree that if I eat at KFC because I like eating chicken I am sinning.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Inocencio...
Everything Karen said.
I respect yours and Randolph's position, that in order to sustain the global market on meat franchising, compromises are made that make the animals suffer... but as long as it's to a good end (namely raising food), they're not suffering "needlessly." (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
My position is that we must never become slaves to a huge corporation's money-saving tactics, if done in the service of sin. I believe that the animals can be raised with dignity, even on a factory farm, but that will take good planning. Already there are some chicken producers that are raising a portion of chickens in more humane, more open, cage-free facilities. Is that too much to ask for? (I mean, think of the positive PR!)

Randolph says: Hence, I do not think it is wrong to stuff animals into cramped living quarters and slaughter them en masse (ala factory farms) so long as this is being done toward some just end.
I agree with what you eloquently stated about how cruelty for the sake of cruelty is against human dignity.
However, I see a problem that needs worked out here. We have another sin in this case, besides possibly being cruel for cruelty's sake. That is: Bad stewardship. And it's derivative of the sins of sloth and greed in the case of the meat mills.
I've never heard that it is okay to do something evil (or cooperate with an evil) for a greater good; I've heard the contrary.
And for what it's worth, I don't believe lobbing off a chicken's head very quickly and relatively painlessly is the same thing as raising them in needlessly inhumane, cruel conditions. It's not as if you're sawing the head off slowly with a butterknife, which they definitely would feel. If they were the same, eating meat would pretty much be forbidden unless the animal died a natural death. ;-)

http://www.recipegal.com/other/genuineKFCsecretrec...
Here's an alternative recipe for those who like KFC and have better meat outlets available to them, and who'd be interested.

Randolph, I don't know what would change your mind, but let me explain some of what I know. Those chickens go insane; that's why they cut their beaks off (without anesthesia). It's so they won't peck each other to death in such cramped, filthy conditions. They're pumped up with hormones to grow so big that their legs can't even support them. They are suffering, and needlessly. Check out Benedict XVI's condemnation of the sufferings of animals treated as a mere commodity here,
for more of an idea as to why I see this as serious enough to warrant change.
Inocencio, I think what Nick is getting at is cooperation in such an evil. Jimmy explains various levels of moral culpability and cooperation here. The way I see it, cooperation by eating at KFC would be only material, not formal, and the cooperation would be remote--the lesser kind. Although that reduces culpability, I tend to see cruelty to animals as a serious enough sin, that I want to avoid any form of cooperation with it whenever there's an alternative. I'd consider myself at least somewhat culpable if I patronized KFC due to the severity and the availability of alternatives. In Nick's example of a homeless man needing fed where KFC is the only place nearby, that would be one of the exceptions.
In my opinion, the sin of cruelty is serious enough that I don't even want to be remotely and materially associated with it where there are alternatives. Maybe your opinion differs on how serious cruelty is, but I think Nick and I are on the same page: That we think it's serious enough, and that if it's at all possible where exceptional circumstances don't apply, then we won't patronize KFC. This is just to explain, not to force anybody to agree with me.
Bill, I was talking about Dr. Eric's beginning his comment with, "Before we get into the veg vs meat debate," which hints that this is all it amounted to, when it's not.

Nick,
Your really think it is sinful for me to go to KFC because I have read the information you have posted? Amazing, but thank you for clarification.
For my two cents (and yes I know that is what it is worth) I agree with Randolph.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Let me clarify what I said before; while the Church teaches that it is wrong to cause animals to suffer needlessly, because in doing so we dehumanise ourselves, I cannot really say that factory farming causes animals to suffer needlessly.
I do think that it is perfectly acceptably to cause animals to suffer, so long as causing them to suffer is done toward some just end. In other words, I can lop off the head of a chicken, so long as I am doing so for a reason (say, for food) and not just for jollies.
Hence, I do not think it is wrong to stuff animals into cramped living quarters and slaughter them en masse (ala factory farms) so long as this is being done toward some just end. I do think that producing enough food to run a large, global business is a just end, and if factory farming is the most efficient way to do this, then I do not think that the factory farming is inherently unjust. The trouble would come if farmers were putting animals in cramped living conditions just for the sake of seeing them squirm (sadism) or just because they were too lazy to go an build them bigger pens (convenience).
However, I ultimately think that the whole point of having a prohibition against harming animals needlessly is to prevent humans from developing an appetite toward cruelty. That beings said, I believe that one could technically brutalize an animal in almost any way, so long as it was being done not for pleasure but for a just purpose; for example, a mad man takes your family hostage and says he will only let them live if you capture a live deer, skin it, and butcher it while still alive. As disgusted as I might be at doing something like that, I would see no moral dilemma in doing so, if it was being done to save a human life. The only sin would come from taking pleasure in the act itself.

If you feed a homeless person off the street, and you only have a couple of bucks, and there's only a KFC in your general vicinity, then eating at KFC is a good thing.
If you go into KFC and purchase the Oreo cake, the corn on the cob, the mashed potatoes, the baked beans, or bring out a ham sandwich (free range, on multi-grain bread) that you made at home, that can be a good thing.
If you go to KFC, and are ill-informed about their participation of the needless cruelty of animals, and have a bucket of original recipe all to yourself, you may be guilty of gluttony, but that's it.
But... the moment you have become informed about an issue, it is important to wrestle with the options before you and make decisions for good. And it's hard. But you cannot stay the same. That, I believe, I dare to say, is sin.
I hope I'm clear. If not, feel free to email me.

Nick,
Are you saying eating at KFC is sinful? Please clarify if I have misunderstood your posts.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

And... to be extra clear, when one speaks of the factory farms causing animals to suffer needlessly, one is not necesarily speaking of the actual slaughter (tho to the some extremists it is), but living conditions in which animals are so crowded they cannot and have never spread their wings; they are debeaked and declawed without anesthesia; they have cages atop of cages so that the feces from above drops on those below; and that in order to compensate the proper muscle growth of these animals, they are injected with growth-stimulating hormones. This is what's being protested, and it indeed qualifies under the category "needless suffering."

Nick, what you said makes sense. But Karen's accusation of people making light of sin requires two assumptions: 1) KFC does indeed cause animals to suffer needlessly(which may or may not be true; I plead ignorance) 2) That the posters KNOW this to be true (of which she must plead ignorance).

Karen --
I like you a lot. You hit it squarely on the head. If something that's clearly against Catholic teaching is being rightly protested, it shouldn't matter who the messenger is, we should get behind it.
But I can sympathize with the jokesters and Michelle... for two reasons: (1) It is very obvious that PETA has ulterior motives when protesting a very good thing, and (2) due to the omnipresence of PETA in faulty media coverage, they probably never met anybody who was well-versed in the factory-farming debate, veggie or not. Can you blame people? I'm sure all that Michelle, Tim J and others have heard about Christian argumentation for vegetarianism is their ludicrous campaign "Jesus was a vegetarian" and "Animals are People too." Umm... no.
What we may have witnessed was a lot of people not understanding the fullness of the atrocities involved, and how it essentially goes against our faith, and instead takes cheap pot-shots at PETA and celebrity philanthropy (which I agree, up to a point).
But I also admire how Tim J admitted that, had this not been initially mocked, the conversation would not have started, and ultimately some earnest learning took place. And I like that bottom line, no matter how we arrived at it.
Bill... the making light of sin parts were when people said they will support a franchise that causes animals to suffer needlessly (which to the CCC, is a sin). And Dr. Eric's comments focussed on critiques of a vegetarian diet, but ultimately that's a different issue.

"Dr. Eric needlessly hints at a vegetarian vs. carnivore strawman, as if anyone who speaks out against animal cruelty must be a vegetarian, or worse, a proponent of PETA." I read both of Dr. Eric's comments several times, and I didn't see anything of the kind in either. What is it that I'm not getting?

I know I've got a thick Irish skull (yeah, I know: that's redundant), but I don't see where anyone made light of sin.

Tim,
I was talking about the sin of cruelty being made light of. It was. Demonstrating someone else's hypocrisy is no excuse to diminish another very real sin--even lavish in the humor of it. I don't think you'd find the humor in it if some pro-abort kid-haters were to hop over here and say that they just love babies--with a nice bernaise sauce and a Merlot. I've seen comments like that before, believe it or not.
Note the several wisecracks. Dr. Eric needlessly hints at a vegetarian vs. carnivore strawman, as if anyone who speaks out against animal cruelty must be a vegetarian, or worse, a proponent of PETA. How wrong. To be Catholic is to be against needless cruelty to animals. Michelle's title says, "Cruel to Chickens?" as if this is news to her, and then puts scare quotes around "cruelty to chickens" in her post. I'm glad at least some people *acknowledged* that the cruelty exists, and that it is wrong.
Then when Nick mentions eating meat and the fact that PETA embarrasses even vegetarians, people sorta listen, apprehensively, and finally stop arguing from a vegetarian vs. carnivore strawman. That strawman made Nick do some extra work he shouldn't have had to do, just to gain credibility. Is anyone who speaks from the CCC teachings on animal cruelty suspect ? It shouldn't be so. It really shouldn't. And why the urge to be flippant about something that the Church defintely teaches against? To point out hypocrisy? It is a pointless and self-defeating way to do it. Posts like these are annoying. It sounds more reminiscent of seedy political punditry than anything Catholic, and that's something I try to get away from, because it turns people into stooges. I'm not amused by it.

Thanks, everybody for your kind comments.
The reading recommendations I shared earlier are not extremist. For anybody who's interested in the atrocities at factory farms (for both the animals, and for those who work there), I highly recommend them as a read/listen. Even if one were to still eat meat, one would find the end results totally unappetizing.
Lastly, for those who are open to trying vegetarianism or flexitarianism, but don't want to do anything too radical, I highly recommend considering giving up meat for Lent. I believe that www.veg4lent.org has some interesting articles about this...

Jim & Karen,
I disagree.
When kooks like those at PETA make accusations of animal cruely, one has to take it with a few large grains of salt, because they classify ANY use of animals (or even pet ownership) as "animal cruelty".
Nick only strengthened his position by allowing at least the possibiltiy of the reasonable use of animal products.
By admitting that he eats meat, he demonstrates that he is a person who can be reasoned with... which is one reason I accept his position as a valid one.
Disavowing PETA is just shorthand for "I am not a nut".
Nick's remarks have been very reasoned, and as a result he has helped me to give more serious consideration to the question of the humane treatment of animals.
I doubt the subject would have come up without Michelle's original post.

I agree with Karen. This post was out of line.

I really don't like to see sin being made light of, even in order to demonstrate hypocrisy of others.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear on cruelty to animals, and yes, animals are more often raised and slaughtered in horribly cruel ways. Nick, Joel and Randolph did a good job. It's ironic that Nick had to say he eats meat before anyone would sorta listen.

Isn't America a great country?

Anyone concerned about how chickens (or any other animal for that matter) are slaughtered, can always buy kosher. Empire is a good brand for poultry.

Does Jim think Michelle's point is that Catholics can't be involved in PETA? Because I'm glad he's not Catholic if that's the case. (he he he). NICK: "the Pat Robertson of vegitarianism." Perfect. That says it all.

Oh how I hated the colonel, with his wee beady eyes, and that smug look on his face.

Is Michelle's point that Catholics can't be involved in PETA? Because I'm glad I'm not Catholic if that's the case.

Is Michelle's point that Catholic's can't be involved in PETA? Because I'm glad I'm not Catholic if that's the case.

The chicken confinement setups, or 'chicken factories' -are-, in my opinion, cruel and inhumane. And I grew up on a farm, and eat meat.

I am afraid I much more cruel to animals than even the factory slaughter houses. You see, I invite them to my island hideaway where I inform them they are to be released into the jungle where I will hunt them down one by one with my crossbow. Just to make things more "fair" and interesting, I tell them I hid a gun in the crook of an old Banyon tree. If they can get there first, they may have a fighting chance.
But the joke is on them! Even though the gun is loaded, the firing pin is gone! You should have seen the look on the face of this elk I pursued last week! In fact, you can see it because that is exactly how I had him stuffed and preserved!! HAHAHAHAHa!
(By the way, I have a small, thin mustache, wear a pith helmet, and talk in an affected and smarmy British accent.)

Suffice it to say, for the length of the debate here on this board, I am totally embarrassed by PETA. To me, PETA is the Pat Robertson of vegetarianism. That people discredit Christianity due to the wacky ravings of a man who has consistently drawn media attention is a warning for us to not fall into that same trap; Most vegetarians are embarrassed by PETA, knowing full well that a very good movement can be discredited by loons who take it too far.
If you want a site more representative of the Christian perspective of vegetarianism, (to complement Randolph Carter's analysis), go to www.christianveg.com .

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about cruelty to animals:
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
You see, it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly. I've always worked under the assumtion that this means that animals have no real dignity of their own, but that in harming animals just for the sake of harming them (i.e. for satisfying one's bloodlust, or for Sadistic purposes) we dehumanize ourselves, sinning in our thoughts.
If one takes pleasure in the suffering of animals, it is little better than taking pleasure in the suffering of humans (only in this case no actual person is harmed). Likewise, brutally slaughtering animals for convinence, and not pleasure, can also desensitise one to suffering / violence. So, we dehumanize ourselves by harming animals. This is why, for example, the Israelites were forbidden from eating strangled animals.
Notice that the Catechism also mentions that we should not spend money on helping animals that could go toward helping humans, nor should we direct toward beasts the love intended only for persons. This is why that though while I believe Man should be a good steward to all of creation, I am diameterically opposed to most every, if not all, "animal rights" organizations, and PETA first and foremost.
Here is more of what the Church has to say about animals:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/82/story_8201_1.htm...
I think everything there is sound : ) Now time for a little KFC

I would like to add some thoughts from Sacred Scripture.
Gen. 3:21: And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.
Exd. 12:6: and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening.
7: Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
8: They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Acts 10:11: and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
12: In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
13: And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
I of course agree with the CCC 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
Just random thoughts about the discussion at hand.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

About the Kosher thing... it is a subject of quite some debate. Basically, kashrut/halaal (Jewish and Islamic, respectively) require the animal's throat to be slashed for the kill, while the modern system involves a shock to the head (usually a bullet); according to Wikipedia, animal right groups and the appropriatea religious groups are often arguing about which one is the more humane method. Personally, if I were the one about to be slaughtered, I'd choose the modern method every day.

Check out www.westonaprice.org for what primitive peoples really ate. It may suprise you. These people had really healthy diets.

I'm not sure where they got their information.
Colonel Sanders was a big time philanthropist who opened homes all over this country for battered chickens.

These people are very scary. Here are some more quotes from their ilk.
http://urlx.org/blogspot.com/d40d
http://urlx.org/blogspot.com/8ac7
http://urlx.org/blogspot.com/f550

To answer DJ's question, I'm going to do the cheap thing, and ask you to go to amazon.com, and do a search for John Robbins' "Diet For a New America". Use the "Search Inside" feature, and do a lookup on "Kosher". He explains it far better than I ever could.

Tim J-
Forgive me for expanding upon this bandwidth, I've shared much too much. I'm grateful for your comments, but I disagree with:"Also, streamlined methods like factory farming enable us to feed large populations, which is nothing to be sneezed at."
Large populations have gotten by without the Western diet, and in many cases a whole lot better. You may want to read up on The Okinawa Diet, The China Study, and Norway during World War II, where extreme rationing pushed for the entire country to forgo meat. Their mortality rates were much lower than ours. Further, because of the nature of raising animals for consumption, a lot more produce and water go into the final product, than it would if we were to "cut out the middle-man", and have the food go directly to the hungry. Not that I'm pushing everybody to live the way I do, but that's how I see it.

I'm not convinced that the Kosher label holds up
In terms of, if meat labeled as Kosher is actually Kosher (which is sometimes not), or as in whether to trust how the animal was actually treated during its life and how the meat was slaughtered?

I'm not convinced that the Kosher label holds up compared to the free range items, especially as written in John Robbins' "Diet for a New America."

Nick-
"My contention on this board has always been that the practices at most factory-farming institutions are unjustly cruel. I'm not talking about the actual slaughter..."
In that case I can respect your position, as well as your decision not to eat factory farm raised meat.
I think G.K. Chesterton would agree.
I'm not as sure about commercial fishing.
One advantage of the factory farm is that it allows wild animal populations (like buffalo, deer, etc...) to remain relatively unmolested. In other words, through the use of factory farming, we can preserve more natural habitat.
Also, streamlined methods like factory farming enable us to feed large populations, which is nothing to be sneezed at.
All of this does not justify inhumane practices, however. We need to reach some sort of humane middle ground.

Nick: Have you ever looked into Kosher meat? Supposedly pretty humane all around. It might be a better alternative to buying more expensive free range stuff found at specialty stores and whatnot.
Hmm.. If eat only Kosher, does this mean I don't have to pray over my meal? :)

Re: Pamela Anderson. It amazes me how some celebrities insist on reinforcing the stereotype about blondes and IQs (" 'a monunent to cruelty' to chickens").

My contention on this board has always been that the practices at most factory-farming institutions are unjustly cruel. I'm not talking about the actual slaughter... I'm talking about the squalid living conditions in which overcrowded, debeaked, declawed, feces-wallowed animals are forced to endure because it saves a buck or two for most major factory-farming institutions. I don't care if they're just "chickens", there are ways around this that most factory-farming facilities do not implement.
Eating vegetarian is a personal decision. If you must know, (and I'm not advocate everybody do what I do), I do eat meat, once or twice a week, usually on Sundays and special occasions. But the meat I eat are almost always cage-free and humanely raised. Since the price for these is considerably higher, it made better sense for us to have tasty, colorful, more nutritious and less expensive vegetable recipes throughout the course of the week. That way, we do not take meat for granted, we are keeping within our budget, we are eating healthier, we eat more exotically (more ethnic-based dishes), we support the local farmers, we also do our part to make the world a better place.
I suppose that makes me a "Crunchy Con". Kewl.