The Parable of the Good Vegetarian

Nikki Cole’s upbringing was unremarkable; her father was the manager of a smallish manufacturing plant in the Midwestern town where they lived, and her mother was mostly stay at home although she volunteered two days a week at the county hospital. Nikki and her two siblings all attended the local Catholic schools through high school. High School is where Nikki had come to vegetarianism.

Initially Nikki came to feel that it was unnecessary for animals to die for her meal when there were so many healthier alternatives that would meet her nutritional needs. At the time that Nikki grew up in the early 70s, it was still the practice for many Catholics to give up meat on Fridays as well as on certain other days during Lent, so learning to give up meat entirely was only the next step. The fact that vegetarianism was a healthier lifestyle choice only reinforced her decision. Over time, Nikki became aware of the factory conditions and corresponding mistreatment of animals pervasive in most agriculture and gradually went “all-in” as a Vegan.

In the early days, there were no vegetarian markets or restaurants in Nikki’s town, and she learned to improvise. One of her prized possessions was her dog-eared copy of Laurel’s Kitchen, an invaluable aid to discovering new techniques and recipes to add variety to her diet. As her talent grew, her friends began to suggest that she open a restaurant, which she did in 1979. Over the years Nikki’s built a loyal following, and not just among vegetarians. Non vegetarians loved the atmosphere and the occasional live music as well as the occasional vegetarian dish.

In 1984 things started changing. The Reagan administration, caving to pressure from big-agriculture began a campaign to encourage a program that it described as “improved universal nutritional care for all Americans.” Reagan’s wife Nancy was put forward as the spokeswoman for a healthier America and began making appearances in classrooms and various town halls across the country. The concept was that only mammalian meat contained the necessary protein, iron and “healthy fats and oils” to build strong muscles and maintain better cardiovascular health. The program cited controversial studies showing that indigenous societies whose diets consisted primarily of mammalian meat had substantially lower instances of cardiovascular disease. (Even more controversially, one of those societies was the hunting region of Uummannaq , Greenland where the diet had consisted primarily of sea-mammal meat from seals and whales)

As part of this program, the administration issued an executive order requiring that all restaurants offer at least two forms of red meat to their customers who requested it. Not surprisingly, vegetarian restaurants protested loudly, and were supported by organizations like Greenpeace and the newly formed People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Having realized the degree to which this executive order would violate her freedom of conscience, Nikki became active in PETA, joining in protests, distributing reports and generally helping to organize and create awareness of the extent to which factory farming harmed the environment, wasted precious resources, was cruel to animals, relied on extensive use of hormones and other “questionable” ingredients in feeds and ultimately created food that was in fact harmful to the diet.

The coalition of vegetarians and their allies grew and angrily opposed the Order. They argued that 1) they didn’t agree with the administration’s opinion that meat was a necessary part of a healthy diet and that in fact more objective research proved the contrary, 2) vegetarian restaurants provided an alternative for those people who did not want to eat meat, but did not by their existence force others to become vegetarians and 3) their choice of vegetarianism was an ethical decision and an example to their communities and that forcing them to serve meat would violate their freedom of conscience and their core mission. They argued further that the executive order was arbitrary, and that there were plenty of other ways for American’s to conveniently obtain meat without it being served at vegetarian restaurants. Lastly, they pointed out that there were many, many healthy protein alternatives, including a large variety of soybean, nut and high protein grains that would be better to promote than animal products. On a personal level, Nikki realized that she would need to close her restaurant rather than play a part in the unnecessary destruction of a single animal.

The administration replied that the vegetarian restaurants were being unconstructive and un-American in standing in the way of better nutrition solely on the basis of their unscientific personal beliefs. Declaring that all American’s should be entitled to superior nutrition throughout the country, the administration offered what they described as a substantial compromise, indicating that the vegetarian restaurants would not in fact have to prepare and serve any meat products, but would be free to purchase meat products for their customers who requested them from a third party subcontractor who would handle actually preparing and serving any meat dishes in the restaurant. To add insult to injury the press began to write stories highlighting how the vegetarian industry was trying to convert meat lovers to eating more soy, labeling the issue and the protests as “The Soy Wars”.

Nikki was outraged at the gall of the administration. They were in effect telling her that while she didn’t personally have to cook meat, she had to take money from her customers and walk outside a pay a butcher to bring prepared meat into her restaurant! And they were totally obfuscating the real issue with their Soy Wars propaganda. The protests began to escalate as more people became aware of the duplicity of the administration, but the administration simply dug in its heels. Nikki helped to organize one protest that grew so large that the government used teargas to disperse the crowd. In the confusion the ensued, a close friend of Nikki was struck by a car and severely injured. Furious, Nikki charged at the police who had fired the canister and ended up being arrested under a variety of charges. During the resulting legal process that followed, Nikki was forced to sell her business to cover her legal expenses.

During her ordeal, Nikki reflected on what had become of her country. She realized that the same distorted logic of better healthcare that had so infringed on her rights could have just as easily been applied to any other business or organization attempting to abide by its core ethics. At an extreme level, she thought, it might even be used to compel religious institutions to offer so-called “reproductive” healthcare services to their employees if such services were determined by a politician to also be in the National interest. Based on her Catholic upbringing, she realized how fundamental the respect for all human life was to her faith and how such a mandate could never be accepted by the Church. Unfortunately, churches and religious groups with whom she spoke dismissed her argument, and accused her of being nothing more than a left-wing PETA activist motivated solely by partisan interests.

Over time, the executive order was declared unconstitutional in the courts, but it took Nikki several years to rebuild her business. She thought to herself, some day, those people who didn’t believe that this sort of thing could ever happen to them might have a rude awakening…

From the article linked above...

Answers to eight common objections to the Catholic position follow:

Objection #1: Why is there the continuing concern? President Obama has already modified the HHS Mandate to alleviate the concerns expressed by the Catholic Church.

Answer: This is simply false.

First, the “accommodation” announced by President Obama on February 10, 2012, was not included in the final language of the regulation. The original language of the “interim final rule” has now been published without change in the Federal Register.

Second, administration officials have informed the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that their concerns are “off the table”, that is, no changes will be made to accommodate the bishops’ concerns. The bishops were told by administration officials that they should learn from enlightened Catholics who disagree with the bishops.

Third, even if the language of the accommodation had been included, the effect would have been even worse in that it would have required exempt churches to provide the mandated drugs and services using deceptive accounting techniques and summary plan description language to hide the government-forced cooperation of the Catholic Church.

Fourth, remember that the HHS Mandate is opposed by many more religions than the Catholic Faith. Orthodox and Protestant Christians, Jews and Muslims also object. The concerns addressed have not been alleviated.

Objection #2: The opposition of the Catholic Church to the HHS Mandate is just another example of the Church promoting discrimination against women.

Answer: The HHS Mandate requires that health insurance plans provide coverage for female surgical sterilization and prescription drugs that both prevent conception and end the life of a human child already conceived.

The Church promotes the dignity of life of every human person, male and female. It opposes both male and female surgical sterilization. It opposes the killing of all unborn children, male and female. It promotes and defends the right to life of both male and female children.

The HHS Mandate forces women to purchase coverage for prescription drugs and procedures without regard to the moral dictates of their consciences. The HHS Mandate forces men and women sponsors of health plans to provide this same coverage, again without regard to the moral dictates of their consciences.

Objection #3: The Catholic Church, in opposing the HHS Mandate, is attempting to impose its morality on people who disagree with its beliefs.

Answer: The opposition to the HHS Mandate by the Catholic Church intends to prevent the government from forcing the Church and others who morally oppose these drugs and procedures from having to offer and pay for them as part of their health insurance plans and to prevent the government from forcing members of such plans from having to pay for them, even indirectly.

Objection #4: There are instances when such drugs and procedures mandated by HHS are necessary to treat health issues unrelated contraception.

Answer: The Church is not opposed to all such drugs and procedures in those cases and already supports and provides health insurance plans that cover them in these cases. Of course the person receiving the treatment should become knowledgeable of the moral implications involved in their specific case.

Objection #5: The Catholic Church should keep out of my bedroom and not tell me what I can and cannot do.

Answer: The Catholic Church simply proclaims the Gospel and all its moral truths as it has been given to understand them. The individual decides whether or not to listen to what the Church teaches. The Church seeks to (a) help individuals to properly form their consciences and (b) to prevent the government from imposing its will on individuals, in violation of their consciences, who agree with the Church’s moral teaching.

The Church seeks to help you arrive at a morally good decision. It asks that the government not force others to pay for your choices when your choices violate their consciences.

Objection #6: The Church’s teaching against contraception doesn’t matter; after all, one survey indicates that 98% of Catholic women have used contraception within the 3 months preceding the survey.

Answer: The results of the survey are skewed and do not reflect reality. The percentage is much smaller. But set that argument aside and assume that the reported conclusion of the survey is accurate. So what?

(1) The Church also teaches that gossip, detraction and calumny are morally sinful, yet many people engage in such behavior – that does not make such behavior morally good. Moral truth does not depend on popular vote. Cheating on a test would not be made morally good, even if the entire student body cheated. All parents have had to deal with a child saying, “But everyone is doing it.” Parents know how to respond, so should you.

(2) The opposition to the HHS Mandate by the Church is not restricted just to contraception. It is also concerned with the abortifacient nature of the contraceptives mandated. Many contraceptive treatments rely on chemical abortion as a part of their operation to “prevent” pregnancy.

Objection #7: The government is not infringing on your First Amendment Freedom of Worship with the HHS Mandate. Why does the Church insist that this is a constitutional issue?

Answer: The Church is seeks to have the First Amendment respected which recognizes the right of the individual and religious groups to practice their faith without interference by the government or others.

When this nation was founded, the founders recognized certain natural rights that were possessed by individuals – rights that derive not from the new government, but from nature (or God). The first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, recognized these personal freedoms and limited the power of government to intrude in these areas.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

We do not possess simply a right to worship within the walls of a church, but also to practice what our religion teaches… in the home and in the public square. The government’s attempt, to force employers and individuals to violate their consciences, is an infringement of their First Amendment rights. This attempt appears to be a part of a growing pattern by the government to redefine religious liberty to be what happens within the walls of the church building – thus the use of the erroneous phrase, “Freedom of Worship”, by government officials.

Objection #8: But the government is only seeking to make necessary preventative health services available to all women. Surely this is for the common good. How is that an infringement of anyone’s rights under the Constitution?

Answer: The First Amendment guarantees the citizens of the United States to practice their religion as discussed in No. 7 above. The Constitution prohibits the government from deciding what these rights are. The people of the United States individually make that determination unless a compelling reason exists for the government to override the decision.

The prescription drugs and procedures mandated by HHS are already widely available and accessible, so on that basis alone, there exists no such compelling reason.

The phrase, “preventative health”, so often used to describe the objective of the HHS Mandate, is a misnomer. Preventative health services should describe the efforts to prevent disease. Pregnancy, that is, carrying an unborn child, is not a disease. The Church does not generally oppose such treatments included in HHS Mandate when they treat disease.