sion. St. Thomas, sorting through this question with hisrntypical thoroughness and acuteness (Summa Th. II ii, 64),rnconcluded that it is both licit and necessary to kill sinners.rnMalefactors are to be put to death for the health of the community,rnand he compares the duties of rulers and physicians: itrnis the physician’s duty to preserve life and health in individuals,rnand rulers have been given the power to protect the community.rnWith a logical shrewdness that now looks like prophecy,rnThomas began his discussion of homicide by disposing of thernfallacy that it is life per se that is to be preserved. If plants andrnanimals are part of the divine order of things, then, he asks, is itrnwrong to kill them? If, after all, homicide is a sin only becausernit deprives a man of his life, the same prohibition extends to animalsrnand plants, with whom we share life. However, Thomasrnpoints out, plants and animals were made for human use. Thatrnanimals feed upon plants, and man upon animals, is part of therndivine order.rnBy implication, then, it is not only natural for human beingsrnto eat meat, but it is also divinely ordained. Vegetarianism (exceptrnfor reasons of health or Christian askesis), therefore, wouldrnamount to a rebellion against the divine and natural order.rnOnce upon a time, vegetarianism had a limited following of thernusual cranks: spiritualists, unitarians, and religious cultists whornforeswear coffee, tobacco, and wine. Today, however, a vegetarianrnis as likely to be a high school cheerleader, starving herrnbody to remain a size 5 and convinced that cows are affectionaternpets or that red meat is a kind of spiritual poison. This teenrnphilosophy, which might be summed up as “meat is ucky,” is sornprevalent that I have to ask my children what their friends willrneat when they come to supper.rnThe Vegan Society, which knows when it is on to a goodrnthing, passes out lengthy and detailed propaganda to aspiringrnteen vegans, complete with nutritional charts and sample weeklyrndiets, all couched in the usual peppy language of the professionalrnuplifter:rnAged between 13 and 19 years of age? Want to be a Vegan?rnYou’ve come to the right place. .. . The vegan diet isrnnearer to government health recommendations than anyrnother dietary group. . . . So, providing teenagers followrnthe guidelines in this booklet, transition to a vegan dietrnshould be trouble-free.rnJust the sort of language to send the average adolescent to McDonald’s.rnIwonder, somehmes, if the most perverse heresy of modernrntimes is not Marxism or feminism or homosexualism, butrnvegetarianism. Marxism, despite the demonic assumptions onrnwhich it is based, is aimed primarily at destroying the foundationsrnof property and status; feminism and homosexualism gornfurther in undermining the natural relation between the sexes,rnwhich is the basis of the entire social order; but vegetarianism isrna complete and thorough rejection of the normal, an overt rebellionrnagainst both creahon and Creator.rnWhen Adam and Eve could not resist the temptation to becomernas gods, they did not taste of forbidden beef It was an applernor—still better—it was generic fruit from a tree “desired tornmake one wise,” and because our first parents ate of it, theirrnGod drove them from Eden to keep them from deciding torn”take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” Christiansrnand Jews have to assume that God knew what he was doing,rnthat Adam, led on by his lust for knowledge and power,rnwould make a raid on life itself in defiance of his Creator. Thernenemies of Christendom have always dreamed of perfectingrnhuman life and gaining immortality on earth: alchemists andrnmystical Freemasons with their mumbo-jumbo of pyramidsrnand homunculi; Benjamin Franklin and William Godwin whornthought science could make man immortal (how that schemernhas to turn out was revealed by Godwin’s daughter, Mary Shelley);rnLenin and Stalin who had to content themselves with thernillusion of eternal mummification; and the current proponentsrnof gene-splicing, cloning, and life made-to-order.rnIn promoting the cause of “life” without qualificahon or distinction,rnpantheists and vegetarians are serving a master otherrnthan the Creator of life. Is it an accident that so many vegetariansrnand animal rights activists are also “pro-choice”? One ancientrnwriter who opposed the P)’thagorean prohibition on meateatingrnargued that the net result would be cannibalism.rnUnable to kill the birds and beasts that ravaged their fields, menrnwould be compelled to attack and eat each other.rnVegetarians can pick as many holes as they like in this fancifulrnmyth, but any form of life altruistic enough to sacrifice itsrnown well-being for the sake of lower animals is putting itself onrnthe endangered species list, and vegetarians are like bellwethersrnleading their pals up to the abattoir: “Take us, take us,”rnthey cr’, “we’re too soft to handle the realit}’ of life.” Even inrnthis technological age, humans are compelled by ancient necessityrnto defend themselves against other species. How wouldrnvegetarians deal with rats or cockroaches or adders? Like thernJains of India, perhaps, they should adopt veils to keep from inhalingrninsects to their doom. But why stop at insects? Amoebasrnhave a right to live, too, perhaps more of a right than human beingsrnwho knowingly slaughter their fellow-creatures, and if lifernis all that matters, viruses—who enjoy near-immortality on thernfrontier between life and non-life—should be elevated to thernhighest place on the scala naturae.rnIn making no distinctions between man and other forms ofrnlife, pantheists are really expressing hatred and contempt forrnhuman life. The animal rights demonstiators who interfere inrnblood sports or throw red paint on fur coats have no qualmsrnabout attacking hunters and fur-bearing starlets. The attitude isrnsummed up succinctly in the Declaration of War found on thernDeo Frugi Gratias website:rnMatar a PersonasrnPara Salvar a AnimalesrnY PreservarrnEl Medio Ambientern”Kill people to save animals and preserve the environment.”rnNot that it would be much fun to be any higher mammal in arnvegetarian regime. The Vegan Society promotes vegetarian dietsrnfor cats and dogs, arguing that it does not violate the cats’rnrights, since, in the wild, cats would be unable to eat chicken orrnbeef Putting cats on a vegetarian diet is not really “playingrngod” or “meddling with ‘nature’ . . . there is nothing that isrnstiicdy natural in any sense that means it is independent fromrnhuman behavior and observation.”rnSo the real focus, after all, is on man and his point of view,rnand vegetarian self-hatred must now be extended to our petsrnand, ultimately, to all the creatures on the planet, none ofrnwhom is really “independent from human behavior and obser-rn12/CHRONICLESrnrnrn