So, here you demand objective reasons for condemnation? Let’s see, if you offer such objective, non-atheist reasons in analogous cases:
No, not even a subjective reason is present.
So, presumably you do not want to be taken seriously?
So, what are you doing here acting as if we had to accept your system?
Isn’t it interesting that after claiming that natural law can’t possibly forbid that, you also give an argument against your claim?
Did you actually fail to notice that?
And, for more details, there is a question in Supplement of “Summa Theologica”: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP041.html.
Do you happen to have a proof? A collection of sermons from that time, perhaps?
No, this was a good example of a word that is vague and hasn’t been precisely defined. That is, is killing for food an essential part of “cannibalism”?