(Inspired by the Can vegetarians drink blood? thread in GQ, which was about something else.)
If I recall my Catholicism correctly, communion is considered to be taking in the body and blood of Christ. Not a representation of it, but the wine and communion wafer are actually considered to transform into Christ’s body and blood upon consumption.
Does this cause you a quandary if you are a vegetarian/vegan?
Related though not a direct answer:
When my wife and I converted to the Episcopal Church, our first priest was a former Methodist minister (and Methodist by birth) who in the course of conversation informed us that he was White Ribbon (the old Methodist “no alcohol shall touch my lips” tradition). We asked him about the communion wine. His answer: “That’s not wine; that’s the blood of Christ.”
As far as I know, most vegetarians refuse to eat meat due to three basic reasons: don’t like killing animals, concerned about the environmental impact of wasteful meat, and/or health reasons. Communion seems like it would be perfectly acceptable because: 1) no animals were killed, and the sacrifice of the body and blood was voluntary; 2) obviously, one does not have to use up additional resources beyond that used to make the bread and wine to procure the body and blood; and 3) surely God would not let His body and blood be bad for you, health-wise (well, I still wouldn’t recommend that people with severe wheat allergies eat wheat communion wafers, but I think a little body-and-blood transubstansiation would be fine for your cholesterol level).
I once speculated whether it would be acceptable for a vegetarian (who was vegetarian for moral reasons only, not health reasons) to eat a piece of pepperoni pizza that was just going to be thrown out anyhow. I mean, the animal has already been killed, the food will be wasted otherwise… But I suspect the act of consuming flesh itself would be disturbing. I doubt this would cause hesitation regarding a sacred ritual like communion, though.
Does that mean vegetarians can eat lemmings?
“No, no minks were killed to make this coat. These minks were all very depressed and committed suicide.” 
Anyhow, lemmings don’t really commit suicide; the Disney video was rigged. While theoretically I can see that flesh from animals that died from suicide or natural causes would be OK for “moral vegetarians” to eat, as I said I suspect the very act of consuming flesh would be seen as revolting once one accepts that killing other creatures without need is wrong (and this would likely not be a problem for communion; it’s poor form to see your Lord’s gift of memory as “icky”). Nor do we know that the animals died for the express purpose of our consumption, so it could be seen as impolite; like someone grilling up your deceased Aunt Nancy. Sure, she’s dead, but she never said it was OK for you to chow down on her.
Gaudere
I believe that the Buddhist position is that this would be acceptable. For them, the issue is, “Was the animal killed specifically for you?” By eating the meat, you would not be causing any more suffering.
But most vegetarians I know would pass on the pepperoni. As an analogy, you might consider how someone who is not a cannibal (for moral reasons, not health reasons :D) would respond if some “human pizza” were being thrown out at some cannibal get-together.
Would it be totally repulsive, considering the point of this thread, to draw attention to Cecil’s column on the consumption of (used) placentas and the vegetarian attitude thereto?
I guess my point was, while the foundation of many vegetarian attitudes may be a refusal to be involved in the suffering of defenseless animals, such people tend to not eat meat simply because they find the consumption of flesh to be generally abhorrent.
I also have never heard of a vegetarian who found it OK to consume meat, so long as the animal wasn’t killed with their eating it in mind.
Was Jesus not defenseless? Did He not suffer? Is it OK for vegetarians to eat meat if the meat-giver somehow says it’s all right?
Which misguided belief do vegetarians hypocritically discard - that all flesh-eating is morally wrong; or transubstantiation?
And if you don’t believe that the wafer and wine transform to Jesus’ flesh and blood … bad Catholic. Bad, bad Catholic.
I believe this is exactly it; the animals cannot give meaningful consent to be killed and eaten. I would assume then, that it is perfectly morally correct to eat another human a la Stranger in a Strange Land (no jokes, please), assuming that human gave his/her consent, although there may be some revulsion towards the actual act of doing so even for such a remorseless meat-eater as myself. If, however, the act is also a spiritually profound ritual communion with your personal deity, I imagine they could overcome a knee-jerk distaste. I don’t see any hypocrisy.
Gaudere wrote:
What if a cow or pig or chicken died for my sins?
I can’t quite decide how serious you all are being here, but on the off-chance you’d actually like a legitimate response, I’ll try and make one.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is fairly intergral to the Catholic faith. Contrary to what the smug atheist might say, we aren’t misguided dupes of a power-hungry institution, held under the sway of some medieval anacronysm in order to get our collection money. It’s faith. But, since you can’t win these type of arguments anyway, I’ll move on.
Catholics do not believe that the bread and wine literally become flesh and blood. We believe it is the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. It is a sacred mystery. Tying this into vegetarianism is illogical, which is why I can’t tell if you all are being serious or not.
However, there have been instances of Hosts turning to actual flesh and bleeding. I’m not sure how much I believe of this sort of thing (weeping Madonnas, etc.) but I do believe people of great faith are rewarded with signs.
Hm. I’m hoping this isn’t an Open Season on Catholics arena I’ve allowed myself to wander into.
No, Ellen, but if you ever want one, try the ‘Narrow Road’ forum on the message boards at leftbehind.com. :rolleyes:
Am I the only one who’s thinking of the cow at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe who asks Arthur Dent and his friends how they want their steaks, and then goes off and humanely shoots herself, thus resolving the ethical problem?
I’m not sure this is true. Here’s something from The Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org speaking on the Holy Eucharist.
and
Well, I spent 12 years in Catholic schools back in the 50’s and 60’s - when Catholics were Catholics - and it was drummed into us that the bread and wine did literally become the body and blood of Christ, although they retained all the outward appearances (the “accidents” in theospeak) of bread and wine. I found this concept hard to swallow (sorry) even back then.
Both Ellen and Drogulus have it absolutely right: Christ is literally present in the eucharist, and it is not literally transformed into the physically corruptible construct of flesh and blood as we typically understand that form. This is actually a less smug (and less humorous) debate that has been underway for some time. For example, some of the first Protestants argued that a strict interpretation of Christ’s words at the Last Supper (as they believed Catholics held) amounted to an imploration to cannibalism.
Catholics who understand transubstantiation are not under the impression they are gnawing on a piece of Christ’s flesh in the sense being discussed here. No one expects to taste anything other than bread or wine, since that’s the form this presence takes, in case anyone is under the impression we’re delusional in that regard (you may think so for other reasons, but that’s not the question under the spotlight here).
It is, from a Catholic’s perspective, the glorified manifestation–and the actual presence nonetheless–of Christ’s body and blood. We needn’t discuss the validity of this–just take my word for it, Catholic vegatarians have no dilemma.
Amen. 