Cannibalism etc.

[Sempronius]

I'll look for it today hopefully. Read it in Claude Fleury's History of the Church.

Council of Le Mans 1248. But that prohibition was for monks.

[Daniel]

There is no comparison between human flesh and animal flesh in this regard.

But why? In the order of nature, the inferior serves the superior. And there's no denying that men are superior to human corpses, in the same way that men are superior to animal corpses. So it seems to follow that in times of necessity, man is not only permitted but is also obliged to eat human flesh. (As long as he doesn't kill another human in order to do so.)

[Gardener]

There is no comparison between human flesh and animal flesh in this regard.

But why? In the order of nature, the inferior serves the superior. And there's no denying that men are superior to human corpses, in the same way that men are superior to animal corpses. So it seems to follow that in times of necessity, man is not only permitted but is also obliged to eat human flesh. (As long as he doesn't kill another human in order to do so.)

Obliged?

[Daniel]

There is no comparison between human flesh and animal flesh in this regard.

But why? In the order of nature, the inferior serves the superior. And there's no denying that men are superior to human corpses, in the same way that men are superior to animal corpses. So it seems to follow that in times of necessity, man is not only permitted but is also obliged to eat human flesh. (As long as he doesn't kill another human in order to do so.)

Obliged?

Maybe? I'm not sure.

But if a human sins by willfully choosing to starve to death when food is available, then I don't see how it would not be a sin to willfully starve to death when that food happens to be human flesh, repulsive as that is.

[Gardener]

There is no comparison between human flesh and animal flesh in this regard.

But why? In the order of nature, the inferior serves the superior. And there's no denying that men are superior to human corpses, in the same way that men are superior to animal corpses. So it seems to follow that in times of necessity, man is not only permitted but is also obliged to eat human flesh. (As long as he doesn't kill another human in order to do so.)

Obliged?

Maybe? I'm not sure.

But if a human sins by willfully choosing to starve to death when food is available, then I don't see how it would not be a sin to willfully starve to death when that food happens to be human flesh, repulsive as that is.

Let's go with the idea that consuming human flesh would be morally permissible in extraordinary circumstances for argument's sake on this point. Ordinary means (regular food) not being available does not obligate one to extraordinary means, just as we see in medical ethics wherein a person does not sin by forgoing extraordinary means of medical intervention after exhausting, or in the lack of, ordinary means.

[Kreuzritter]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4edIxzhU80[/yt]

There's nothing more one needs to say.

But why? In the order of nature, the inferior serves the superior. And there's no denying that men are superior to human corpses, in the same way that men are superior to animal corpses. So it seems to follow that in times of necessity, man is not only permitted but is also obliged to eat human flesh. (As long as he doesn't kill another human in order to do so.)

What an exemplar of the absurdity of rationalising the world and morality! No, sir, those who deems themselves "superior" pronounce anything they want to exploit "inferior" to justify what they have already chosen to do.

[Philip G.]

Philip, St. Paul was clear in 1 Cor 8 that it was not forbidden to eat meat which had been sacrificed to idols, but rather if doing such a thing would scandalized those of a weaker mind (having not knowledge of the truth), then those with that knowledge (that the meat itself was morally neutral) should not eat the meat. But of eating the meat considered of itself, it was not sinful except if it caused scandal. The sin would be scandal, not the eating considered objectively.

Human flesh being consumed is an abhorrent practice, whether from necessity or not; the survivors of the crash were driven to it out of near madness and regardless of what Paul VI said, that doesn't change the reality of what they did and they expressed as much later. There is no comparison between human flesh and animal flesh in this regard.

Regardless of what St. Paul said, I am pretty sure the early church did forbid the consumption of meat sacrificed to idols on that account(the scandal it would cause others).  And, animals are not the only creatures that have been sacrificed to idols in the history of mankind.  Humans have as well.  So, if a Catholic could or would argue a conspiracy or sacrifice of sorts, then they may be able to speak of sin.  That is the only explicit thing I can think of. 

This is important because the majority of those in that Chilean crash were Catholics from what I understand.  If they were not Catholic, it would be different, indicated by St. Paul's teaching.  And, don't think that I am justifying or trivializing what they did.  I am just not interested in revealing my mind as to where I would place sin regarding all this.