This is a question I’ve been puzzling over for a while now. While I know it’s highly unlikely to ever apply to me (or anyone I know) in an actual situation, I would still very much like to know if would be of grave matter for someone who is in an extreme situation where the person would have to eat something really gross that would really disturb the person to eat and or very likely cause a gag reflex (like a fish just plucked out of the ocean or a dead mouse just as it is to give two examples) or die, for the person to just choose death? (Of course, one could easily die later because they had eaten something like that.)
I remember watching a documentary about a group of men (three or more) stranded for a really long time in a little row boat out on the ocean. Most of them ate straight from the ocean, but one man was too grossed out and refused. He died.
There are PLENTY of things I know I’d rather die than even try to eat…though not if out of God’s Grace of course.
Also, if such a situation arose and a beloved pet was with someone, they wouldn’t have to kill the pet to eat, would they? There are plenty of people who could never bring themselves to do that, though I acknowledge that people are much more important than animals, pets do tend to feel like a part of the family (at least an animal like a cat or dog plus there’s the added factor of grossness in eating them because of their very species–for many.)
It is of course the case that one would never have to resort to cannibalism though, right? I mean, I know in the case that it is the ONLY known potential food-source and the person is known to be dead, than the CCC says (and look it up if you don’t believe me) that it is morally acceptable to eat their flesh, but one wouldn’t be morally obligated to in such a situation, would they? Most people would rather die than do that, moral obligations aside.