Why do vegetarians eat mock meat? There are two kinds of vegetarians. One kind is those who freely choose to be vegetarians for one reason or another. This kind who tend not to eat mock meat, unless they are looking for some variety. Even so, mock meat is not a common part of their diet.
The other kind is those who did not choose to be vegetarians. Perhaps they have a disorder that prevents them from eating meat. Or perhaps they were born into a religion that forbids them from eating meat. Now these are the kind of people who would eat mock meat, because they did not really choose to be vegetarians. They desire to eat real meat, but because they cannot, they settle for a substitute.
Mock meat looks like meat, smells like meat, but when you bite into it, you know for sure that you’re not eating meat. If you have a good imagination, you might be able to fool your senses into believing that you really are eating real meat. But you know you’re not, because if you are a vegetarian, whether by choice or not, you know you should not be eating meat. That’s why you eat mock meat.
However, a vegetarian who continues to eat mock meat is only making it harder for himself to live a truly vegetarian lifestyle. So long as he believes mock meat to be a substitute for real meat, he will never truly accept his condition that he cannot eat real meat. Every time he eats mock meat, he will be reminded of the real meat which he cannot eat, and he grows more resentful of his vegetarian condition.
What is the way out of this unfortunate dilemma then? When a person truly accepts that his condition as a vegetarian makes him unable to eat real meat, he will choose a lifestyle in which meat is not an option. When he turns away from eating mock meat and has a lifestyle that is truly vegetarian, he will, in time, come to grow accustomed to such a lifestyle and may even see the benefits of such a lifestyle.
These are the people who have freely chosen to be vegetarians and are happy about their choice. They have accepted their condition as vegetarians and are happy about not being able to eat meat.
Something similar can be said for diabetics. A diabetic is one who cannot take sugar. He did not choose to be diabetic, but his diabetes is a disorder that prevents him from taking sugar. The modern day substitute for sugar is artificial sweetener. But is taking artificial sweetener good for the diabetic? Let’s take a look.
When a diabetic first learns of his medical condition, he is most often in denial. He refuses to accept that he cannot take sugar again. Slowly he comes to accept it that sugar is poison to him, so he settles for a substitute artificial sweetener. The thing is, artificial sweetener is not sugar and it doesn’t taste the same.
Every time the diabetic takes the artificial sweetener, he is reminded that he cannot take real sugar and resents his medical condition. The artificial sweetener that is so present in his life is a constant reminder of his medical condition which he has not truly accepted. In fact, we can even say that the artificial sweetener prevents or hinders the diabetic from accepting his medical condition.
Consider the alternative where a diabetic stops taking sugar (natural and artificial) altogether. He accepts that his medical condition means that he will never be able to take sugar again. Therefore he goes in search of alternative food that will enable him to eat normally and not miss sugar. In time, he grows accustomed to food without sugar and is no longer resentful of the fact that he cannot take sugar. Sure, he might miss sugar, but not as much as the diabetic who is still taking artificial sweetener, because he has grown to accept life without sugar.
Finally, let’s look at homosexual unions. Homosexuals are people who did not choose to become homosexual. One of the effects of being a homosexual means that one cannot enter into a marital union because this means a union with a member of the opposite sex. What can a homosexual do then?
The answer that the world seems to give is that homosexuals can enter into a homosexual union. This is not a marital union and can never be. But the world would have us believe that it is a substitute for marriage that is applicable only to homosexuals. But it is not and cannot be a substitute for marriage because it is not marriage any more than mock meat is meat or artificial sweetener is sugar.
A homosexual in a homosexual union may be happy with his homosexual union and may even be able to live a happy life. But such a homosexual will never be happy being a homosexual. Why? Because his homosexual union is a constant reminder of the marital union that he really desires, just as artificial sweetener is a constant reminder to the diabetic of the sugar he really desires.
The homosexual union will make the homosexual grow even more resentful of his homosexual condition and he will never truly come to accept the gravity of his condition as a homosexual. This is because of the lie that he constantly tells himself – that his homosexual union is an alternative to marriage, and he knows deep down that it is not and can never be an alternative to marriage.
What choice then is there for a homosexual? Like the vegetarian who accepts his condition as a vegetarian, like the diabetic who accepts his condition as a diabetic, a homosexual can come to accept his condition as a homosexual… that being a homosexual means that he can never get married.
He can then begin to look for alternative lifestyles, such as celibacy, which will not serve as constant reminders of his inability to marry. In time, he may grow accustomed to celibacy and even begin to see the benefits of such a lifestyle.
The world would have us believe that the legitimisation of homosexual unions is showing compassion to homosexuals and their condition. This is a lie. In fact the contrary is true. Homosexual unions do harm to homosexuals because it hinders or prevents the full acceptance of their homosexual condition. It prevents them from finding alternatives to marriage, alternatives that they can be truly happy as a homosexual. Homosexual unions prevent homosexuals from accepting their sexual identity as homosexuals.
This is why the Catholic Church forbids the legitimisation of homosexual unions – because it has in mind the good of the homosexual person and aims to help the homosexual person to come to terms and accept his disordered sexual condition. The legitimisation of homosexual unions does, in fact, cause more harm to the homosexual person.
Note: This is a personal reflection and may not be the stand of the Catholic Church. It is open to critique and comments.
Added on 14 June 2008:
I wrote this post more than a year ago, and I’ve since learnt more about this subject. Below is the stand of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.
The Catholic Church forbids homosexual acts and same-sex unions because such sexual acts and unions are not marital. For a sexual act to be marital:
- it must be an act of the generative kind; that is, culminates in a union of the generative organs in which the wife accepts into her genital tract her husband’s genital organ, and the seed he thereby gives her; and
- it is an act of friendship; in which each is seeking to express commitment to and affection for, and the desire to benefit and give marital pleasure to, and share marital pleasure with, the other spouse as the very person to whom he or she is committed in marriage.
Homosexual acts are just one group of sexual acts that are not marital. Other sexual acts that are not marital include marital rape, marital lustful acts, marital masturbation, contraceptive sex, adultery, pre-marital sex, etc.
Filed under: FAQs, Holy Matrimony, Homosexuality, Life Reflections, Relationships
Hi Clare,
Thanks for clarifying. I now understand why the Church tends to use the term ‘same-sex attraction’ rather than ‘homosexuality’, since there is often a lot of confusion. According to the Church’s definition, a person is homosexual if there is a predominant preference for persons of the same sex over the preference for persons of opposite sex; and a person is heterosexual if there is a predominant preference for persons of opposite sex over the preference for persons of the same sex. I don’t think the Church accepts bisexuality, because in bisexual persons, there is usually a predominant preference for persons of either opposite sex or same sex, and not exactly the same preference for both, so the person is either homosexual or heterosexual.
So, according to your explanation, what do you call a person who is neither homosexual nor heterosexual (as in, this person has not engaged in sex before)? Also, what do you call a person who has engaged in one isolated case of homosexual sex, but prefers persons of opposite sex, or vice versa?
From what I am reading, I understand that a person’s actions makes the person something i.e. a murderer, a homosexual, a heterosexual, etc. But how do we reconcile this with Jesus’ teaching that “if a man lusts after a woman, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart”? I think what Jesus is saying here is that merely desiring someone without actually physically having sex with this person is already committing adultery. Similarly, when it comes to murder, we don’t have to actually commit murder to do wrong. Simply wishing that this person gets hurt, suffers or dies is bad enough already. The reason Jesus teaches this is because at that time, the Jews were so preoccupied with the letter of the Law, as in their actions must be in line with the Law, that they paid no attention to the spirit of the Law. In other words, they paid more attention to action than intention.
I recall a court case in Australia in 2006 concerning someone I met in NS. He was on trial for having committed a double murder. The trial was concerned with whether this person actually committed murder (premediated) or whether he did not intend to kill. If he had just killed in a fit of rage, or the deaths were an accident, he might have gotten a lighter sentence, but as such, he was found guilty of having planned the murder, so was convicted to life imprisonment. What I’m saying is that the action alone does not determine the guilt of a person, but the intention needs to be considered as well.
[In answer to your question about Abraham, it does not constitute murder, because Abraham did not have the intention to kill Isaac. God does not answer to our moral laws because God created them, and God is the author of all life. It is God alone who has the power to take life away from someone, since it is He who gave it to us. Of course God gave life to us for a reason, but that's a discussion for another time. ]
What does this have to do with our discussion? Well, I would say that if a person with same-sex attraction tries hard to resist his disordered inclination but fails and gives in to it sometimes, he is less guilty that a person who does not resist his disordered inclination and goes all out to satisfy his sexual urges with persons of the same sex. Without even having to consider multiple acts, but just consider any one isolated act for each, the person who resists the inclination tends to be less guilty than one who doesn’t resist it at all. Basically speaking, the person who is more free to commit an immoral act has more guilt, and you will probably find that the latter person will be the one who claims freedom to act. The former will probably say something like, “I didn’t really want to do it, but I couldn’t resist it.” The latter will probably say something like, “I’m free to do whatever I want.”
Reflecting on it tells us that the former will not consider entering into a homosexual union or trying to justify it, but the latter will and will seek to justify it as well. But it would seem that all such persons are trying to do is to seek public and societal approval for giving in to their (disordered) inclinations.
Yes, I do believe that everything should be questioned, even if it has been questioned before, and even if the answer you get is the same one as the one you’re given. It’s important to find out the reasons for ourselves, so that we truly believe what we say we believe in. But that does not mean that we have to question something before we can believe in it. We can believe in something first, and then question it to search deeper, and then when we have found our answers, our belief is strengthened.
We can use the example of teaching a child that fire is hot. The child believes us not because she has experienced it or questioned it (she wouldn’t be able to understand the explanation yet). There is nothing wrong with the child believing what she is told without having to question what she believes. But when the child grows older and is better able to understand such things, she can start to ask questions like, “Why do you say that fire is hot?” and then it is a good time for the parent to explain why, or the child can find out for herself in an encyclopedia.
What I mean is that while it is true that all things should be questioned, we must also accept that we might not be able to accept or understand the answers if they are given to us now. We might not yet be at that level of understanding yet, and just because we cannot understand something doesn’t mean that we should not believe that something is true.
Finally, it is also important to keep coming back to the same questions over and over in our lives, because as we grow and mature, as our capacity for learning expands, we will find more and more answers to our original questions.
There are also certain things we have to be clear about, like if we choose to believe something that is different from the Church’s teaching, particularly if it is an infallible teaching (e.g. if we believe that Mary is not conceived without original sin), then we have to also accept the consequences of that choice, in which case is accepting that if our beliefs don’t coincide with the Church’s teachings, we cannot continue call ourselves Catholic, and we cannot receive Holy Communion (since we are not in communion with the rest of the church).
This is the power of freedom, and freedom entails accepting the responsibilities and consequences of our choices.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
1) re: what do you call a person who has engaged in one isolated case of homosexual sex, but prefers persons of opposite sex, or vice versa?
i would call them ‘rash’, ‘impulsive’, or ‘confused’. i said that i think the term ‘homosexual’ applies to people who persistentlychoose to engage in homosexual activities.
2) it’s not any of my business to assess a person’s guilt. people can develop ways to convince themselves of anything, even convince themselves that they ‘don’t really want to do something’ or that they really want to do something. i find your assumptions about guilt too simplistic, although i get where u’re coming from. i read the few lines in the Catechism.
4) re: “if a man lusts after a woman, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart” – then i think we would have to understand the true nature of the lust, and its origins. it is quite natural for men’s eyes to wander, so i’m told. Fantasising is also common. But some of them do not translate into action, perhaps out of fear or because they know it is wrong. Then an healthy person who realises this would eventually stop his fantasising. Usually people who indulge in too much fantasising are deprived in some way. Maybe they are lonely.
I would say Jesus said this line to remind, as u say, about the ‘spirit of the law’, so that the people would truly learn and try to be pure. But one cannot convict for actions not performed. If I were to be very attracted to someone, and want to bed him, even have thoughts about bedding him for some time, but never got to it because i refuse to give in, then am i guilty? If i finally give in and say that it was too much to bear, am i less guilty? if i give in to the heat of the moment, then who is to say my guilt is diminished? ppl can unconsciously create circumstance that lead up to an act, or simply create them by choosing not to be vigilant until the last minute. then in heat of the moment they make a split second decision etc.etc. which they can claim is a ‘rash’ act.
ppl may simply hv personality disorders or the tendency to delude themselves etcetc. bcos of smth tt happened earlier in their life. human psychology is too complex to make generalisations about guilt, i think. to me that’s judging where i have no right to judge. i notice that the Catechism merely says some ppl hv diminished ability to choose, it does not say how to judge what is this diminished ability…
Hi Clare,
I agree very much with what you wrote about fantasizing. But it is not loneliness that drives a person to fantasize. Rather, it is self-centredness, for fantasy is always about the self. From my years of fighting against fantasizing, I’ve come to learn that the way to avoid fantasy is to get more involved in the lives of other people.
There is something else that needs to be said about fantasy. We fantasize because we have a void in our lives that needs to be filled. Take for example a man who has grown up in a family of strong women figures. His mother, his grandmother, and his sisters (usually older sisters) and cousins are strong women and they make the decisions for him all his life. While he might be fine with it externally, since this is how he grew up, he might harbour the desire to be in control for a change. Hence he might start to have sadistic or dominating fantasies.
Conversely, for an alpha male, someone who is in control of other people’s lives, he might have the desire to let someone else take control of him for a change. He therefore might have fantasies of people dominating him, or being humiliated by other people. I speak of this for males only, but I believe the same applies for females, based on my discussions with other friends.
I have found, from my own experience, that when I start fantasizing, it is because a need in my real life is not being met. Taking steps to address that need and to fill that void, I have found that this diminishes or even removes my desire to fantasize.
It is true that we are no position to assess another person’s guilt (unless we’re a priest in the confessional), but this falls in line with what was discussed earlier about asking questions. These are all answers that come forward from asking questions, and even if we are not in a position to assess another person’s guilt, we are in a position to learn how to assess our own guilt. For what we are discussing might one day be applicable to us, and is already applicable to us in some ways.
Let me give you an example using wandering eyes, since as a man, I feel that I have to defend men haha.. Wandering eyes is not sinful unless one chooses to allow his eyes to wander without keeping them in check. You could call wandering eyes an inclination that is not healthy (especially for the man whose girlfriend, fiancee or wife catches him looking at other women
).
For example, if I know that I enjoy looking at other women and continue to do so on purpose, such as deliberately taking a route in town that has more good-looking women, then I am guilty because I have made a choice to indulge my inclinations. However, if I know that I enjoy looking at other women and this is not what I should be doing, I am not guilty if I turn away every time I realize that my eyes have wandered. Even though the action is the same, the choice is made when I catch myself doing it. The choice that I make next – to turn my eyes away or to keep looking – determines my next course of action.
I can also make a choice to take a different route to my destination, not because I am avoiding beauty, but because I know of my own inclinations and don’t want to put myself in what is called “a near occasion of sin”, which means a situation in which I am more likely to sin.
It is true that one cannot be (legally) convicted for actions not performed, but one can sin for actions not performed. When we pray the ‘I confess’ (the Confiteor), do we not say, “… that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do…”? We can sin in our thoughts and we can sin by not acting when we’re supposed to.
A good example is the one you have described. You are right to say that a person can create circumstances that lead up to an act, or choose not to be vigilant, such that they can claim that they have made a rash act. This is true, but the sin does not consist only of the ‘rash act’, but in conciously creating those circumstances, and choosing not to be vigilant (choosing not to act when they were supposed to). Those are also sinful choices, particularly because they are conscious choices. The sin did not begin when they made the act, but when they made the first choice towards the act. Hence, the importance of the intention rather than the action, as I wrote in the previous comment.
Let’s take your example. Say you saw an attractive man and decided that you want to bed him. This first decision is a cooperation with evil already, even if you might have been tempted. Then you take steps to get to know this person. There’s nothing wrong with the act in itself, but if you’re getting to know the person with the intention of bedding him at a later time, then this is another sin. Continuing to seduce him through manipulation of emotions or otherwise also constitutes another sin. But say it comes to that night, and you suddenly have a change of heart, and realize that this is not what you wanted because it offends God and goes against the moral law. But because you have no or little choice, and in the heat of the moment, you decide to go ahead with it. It is true that you are less sinful for the act alone, but you are not less sinful for all that you have done in the past that led up to this act.
This is only an example, because as you wisely put, we cannot make generalizations. The Church can only give guidelines to follow, and we have to seek out assistance from others who are more qualified in order to find more specialized guidelines for ourselves in our own unique circumstances. These people could be counsellors, psychologists, and spiritual directors. The aim of it is to learn more about ourselves and the truth so that we are in a better position to make wise and good choices.
When I attended a support group for my own sexual issues some time ago, I gradually came to realize how I have been deliberately put myself in occasions of sin. The very way in which I position myself in church so that I can look at another woman came so naturally to me that it took some effort to realize that I was doing it. Being aware of it made me realize that I could choose not to go with what had become so natural to me, and in so doing, a big step was taken to stop the sin at the first choice. That is not to say that I don’t sin in this way any more, but it actually makes me more guilty when I cooperate with evil in future, because I know what I am doing. Previously, I was less guilty because these were unconscious choices. But now that I am more conscious I am more guilty.
Of course some people might then say, “It is better not to know, since it makes me more guilty.” But in choosing not to know, we have already made a choice to avoid the truth rather than to seek it. There’s something that I do agree with you. This is a complex issue, but that should not prevent us from trying to find out about it and form our own knowledge of it. It is also important, as previously written, to keep revisiting this, because we learn more and more each time we talk about it with someone else.
In a nutshell, every moral choice we make is a cooperation with good or a cooperation with evil, regardless of the action taken. We may not have always have a choice over our actions, but we always have a choice to cooperate with good or with evil. This is essentially what free will is about.
One of the main problems that we, as sinful humans have, is the disconnect between what we want to do, and what we find ourselves doing. Some people might call this ‘hypocrisy’, but our Church teaches us that this is an effect of original sin. How so? As you know, the human being is made up of the body, the will, the emotions, and the soul. Before original sin took place, these four were in harmony and when a human being made a choice, he made it with his whole body, will, emotions, and soul. This is why the sin of Adam and Eve is so serious, because when they chose to sin against God, they chose it with their whole being.
One of the consequences of original sin is to dis-integrate humans, such that the connections between the body, the will, the emotions, and the soul are faulty. That is how we can want to do something with our will, but our emotions override it, and our body ends up doing something totally opposite from our will. What we should therefore focus on striving for, is not the removal of sin in our lives, but the cultivation of virtues, and the integration of the human person as best as we can. In other words, we are called to “Love your God with all your strength, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind”, which is the first and greatest commandment.
The reason it is impossible for us humans to stop sinning completely is because we are dis-integrated persons. It is this dis-integration that makes it impossible for us not to sin.
I want to thank you Clare, for having this discussion with me. It has helped me to revisit some of the knowledge I’ve learnt in the past and to reflect more deeply on it, as well as to integrate (pun intended) it to what the Church teaches. Thank you, Clare! Of course this by no means ends the discussion. I just wanted you to know that I am grateful to have this opportunity to share and to learn from you.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
ok enough i scared i leap on the next guy i c
haahaaa touch wood God forbid i fall again
maybe u shld try not talking abt sex then wun feel horny lol
thanks for the long reply. i want a job like urs. hhaahaa
Hi Clare,
Actually, when I talk about sex, I feel less horny, because it’s putting it down in words. Being able to analyse and discuss it helps separate the emotions into thoughts and helps me to see what is irrational (emotions) and what is rational (thoughts).
A job like mine… Ah yes, I have things to tell you when we meet on Saturday.
God bless,
Catholic Writer