News Brief

A violent onslaught on schechita by Professor Ude of Gratz, who is introduced as one of the leading Catholic theologians, appears today in the Hitlerist central organ, the “Voelkischer Beobachter,” which, in an editorial note, explains that though Professor Ude’s views on political and other questions are not its own, it entirely agrees with him in his stand on schechita, which is of special interest as representing the attitude of the Church.

“The question,” Professor Ude says, “is how a Christian, from the point of view of his Christian moral teaching, is to vote (as in the case of the referendum on schechita in Liechtenstein) on the question of schechita. Whether he votes for or against depends on whether schechita involves cruelty to the animal. If schechita were merely a matter of indifference, it would be unnecessary to conduct any investigations into it, because there would be no objection to schechita as such. But if schechita is a cruel method of slaughtering, involving unnecessary pain to the animal, it is the duty of Christians who obey conscience to seek to prohibit schechita under all circumstances, and if there is a referendum, he must on no account vote in favor of schechita. The question whether schechita is cruel and therefore immoral, must be decided primarily by experts, whose decision is authoritative for moralists, theologians and for us priests. The experts, as it happens, have taken up varying attitudes on the question, but the majority of them, with the exception of but few, have decided that schechita is a cruel method of slaughtering, causing the animal unnecessary pain. This being so, I, as a theologian, and a Christian must not favor such methods of slaughtering.

“As a Christian I am bound to prohibit and to make impossible such methods of slaughtering. The claim that schechita is a ritual, a religious prescription binding on Jews, does not stand on critical examination of the historical facts. A great deal which was commanded the Jews by their traditions and customs was afterwards abandoned. In the same way that the (Continued from Page 4)

Jews claim schechita as a ritual command of their religious tradition, they might claim that their tradition commands the stoning of people as laid down even in the Law of Moses. Just as the Jews have had to abadon the abominable custom of stoning, they can also abandon the barbaric custom of schechita, and they will have to abandon it.

“We Christians have no reason whatever, because of the claim made for schechita that it is a ritual command, to cease our effort to compel the Jews, if they are not decent enough to do it themselves without compulsion, to be humane and to cease to practice the abominable method of schechita. We would, for instance, tolerate no Hindoo among us, who burned the widow with her dead husband, no matter how much he might contend that it is with him a religious ritual practice. And we Christiins have so much less reason for taking into consideration the alleged ritual practice of schechita, because the entire Old Testament does not contain a single passage making schechita a religious act and commandment for the Jews. What is there then, to keep us from insisting that in every case without exception the animal to be slaughtered must first be stunned?

“I want to make it clear, Professor Ude continues, “that whatever I say in this matter, I am not preaching race hatred. All who know my views on other questions will admit that. but I refuse to keep silent in the face of gruesome abominations, because they are practiced by any particular race, no matter what claim is made in their justification. We demand of all Governments, of State and Church, that every animal before it is slaughtered must be stunned. I go so far even as to declare in full knowledge that I am speaking from my standpoint as a Christian, that to a god who demands schechita, and who ordained schechita as a ritual and a commandment, I can give no worship. He would in my eyes be an abominable god, no god. God is Love.

“It was for this reason and in the conviction that the International Congress for the Protection of Animals, in which I participated, must not be indifferent to this matter, that I introduced the following resolution: This International Congress for the Protection of Animals, meeting in Vienna, stands definitely on the side of the opponents of schechita. It thanks the opponents of schechita in Liechtenstein for the initiative which they have taken in the matter of the schechita question. At the same time, the International Congress for the Protection of Animals, calls upon all friends of animals throughout the world to take action so that the barbaric and uncivilized method of schechita should in all States be abolished by appropriate legislation.

“With this resolution adopted, it now becomes a matter for the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in all countries to work to remove the gruesome method of schechita off the face of the earth,” the writer concludes.